Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2022-00026222-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 30, 2023

12/01/2023  09:30:00 AM  C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00026222-CU-PO-CTL ROSALINDA GUTIERREZ BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST RAUL GUTIERREZ VS BRIGHTON PLACE SPRING VALLEY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 06/28/2023

Plaintiff Raul Gutierrez's Motion to Compel Defendant B-Spring Valley, LLC dba Brighton Place Spring Valley's Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Plaintiff Raul Gutierrez's Motion to Compel Defendant B-Spring Valley, LLC dba Brighton Place Spring Valley's Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The parties' respective requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.

Preliminary Matters The general rule of motion practice is that new evidence is not considered on reply unless the evidence fills gaps created by the opposition. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1538.) As this was the case here, the Court has considered the reply declaration of Madison O. Miller. (ROA 67.) Discussion Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) RFP Nos. 16, 22, 24, 25, 27, 36-38, 42, and 44 Defendant served supplemental responses to these requests on September 1, 2023, after Plaintiff filed the motion. Plaintiff does not challenge the sufficiency of the supplemental responses. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED as moot as to these requests.

At the time of the Reply filed in support of this motion on November 22, 2023, the outstanding requests at issue are as follows: RFP Nos. 17, 19, 20, and 41.

RFP Nos. 17, 19, 20, and 41: These requests seek various policies and procedures concerning Defendant's skilled nursing facility. In opposition, Defendant acknowledges the documents sought are 'likely necessary for discovery' and has indicated a willingness to produce documents pursuant to a protective order. (ROA 62, Oppo., pp. 6: 14-20, 7: 24-25.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses and documents as to Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2989061  47 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ROSALINDA GUTIERREZ BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR IN  37-2022-00026222-CU-PO-CTL Request Nos. 17, 19, 20, and 41 is GRANTED, subject to a protective order. The documents can be reviewed only by the attorneys in this case and their agents in preparation for litigation in this case.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) SI Nos. 22, 23, 29, 44, 89, and 102 Defendant served supplemental responses to these interrogatories on September 7, 2023, after Plaintiff filed the motion. Plaintiff does not challenge the sufficiency of the supplemental responses. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED as moot as to these interrogatories.

At the time of the Reply filed in support of this motion on November 22, 2023, the outstanding interrogatories at issue are as follows: SI Nos. 63, 67, 71, and 94-99.

SI Nos. 63, 67, 71 These interrogatories ask Defendant to state all facts supporting the following contentions: - the facility had 'adequate' feeding instructions for Rosalinda Gutierrez in place from June 3, 2021 to July 7, 2021; - the facility 'adequately' fed Rosalinda Gutierrez on July 7, 2021; and - the facility 'adequately' monitored Rosalinda Gutierrez for aspiration on July 7, 2021.

Plaintiff's motion is DENIED as to these interrogatories. Defendant's objections that these interrogatories seek the premature disclosure of expert opinion have merit.

SI Nos. 94-99 These interrogatories ask Defendant to describe in detail certain policies and procedures at the facility in effect from June 3, 2021 to July 7, 2021.

In light of the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 17, 19, 20, and 41, Defendant's further responses to these interrogatories are warranted.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to SI Nos. 94-99 is GRANTED, subject to a protective order. The further responses can be reviewed only by the attorneys in this case and their agents in preparation for litigation in this case. The parties are ordered to meet and confer on whether Defendant can exercise the option under C.C.P. § 2030.230 to specify and make available documents in response to these interrogatories.

Sanctions All requests for sanctions are DENIED. Plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements for requesting sanctions and failed to provide a declaration accompanying the notice setting forth the facts supporting the amount of sanctions. (See C.C.P. § 2023.040.) Additionally, both parties acted with substantial justification.

Timing Further responses and documents as required above are to be served within 30 days of notice of this ruling.

Conclusion The minute order will be the final ruling of the Court. Plaintiff is ordered to serve written notice of ruling on all parties.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2989061  47