Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22PSCV0058, Date: 2023-10-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22PSCV0058 Hearing Date: October 5, 2023 Dept: 25
CHARLES YANG vs TREVOR LORDS
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant’s Motions to Compel Initial Responses to both Form and Special
Interrogatories are GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
On June 15, 2022,
Plaintiff Charles Yang (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, filed a complaint against
Defendant Trevor Lords (“Lords”). Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended
complaint naming Lords and Beacon Healthcare Center. Plaintiff alleged
negligence, destruction of personal property, intentional infliction of
emotional distress and medical malpractice. Defendants filed an answer on
November 23, 2022, correcting the name of defendant Beacon Healthcare Center to
West Covina Care, Inc. dba Beacon Healthcare Center.
On
January 23, 2023, Defendant Beacon Healthcare Center (“Beacon” or “Defendant”)
served Plaintiff with initial discovery requests, including Form
Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories.
Plaintiff’s responses to
the discovery requests were due to Defendant on or before February 24, 2023.
However, Plaintiff’s responses were not forthcoming, nor was an extension of
time requested by Plaintiff. (Decl. of Colin M. Harrison at ¶3.)
On March 20, 2023,
Counsel for Defendant sent written correspondence via U.S. mail and email to
Plaintiff in pro per advising that responses to the discovery requests were
overdue and requested that Plaintiff provide full and complete responses and
all requested documents. (Decl. of Colin M. Harrison at ¶4.)
On March 21, 2023,
Counsel for Defendant then called and spoke with Plaintiff in Pro Per regarding
the overdue discovery. (Decl. of Colin M. Harrison at ¶5.)
On June 5, 2023, the
Court heard the Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and ordered
Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objections, to Form
Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, on or before
June 12, 2023. (Decl. of Colin M. Harrison at ¶6.)
Subsequently, Plaintiff
mailed a pleading entitled “1) Respondent’s response to Petition special
interrogatories, Set One and 2) Respondent’s Response to Form Interrogatories,
Set One” which are dated and signed on June 11, 2023. Defendant Beacon contends
these statements were not responsive to the interrogatories propounded on
Plaintiff. (Decl. of Colin M. Harrison, ¶ 7; Exhibit B.)
On July 24, 2023, counsel
for Defendant sent meet and confer correspondence to Plaintiff seeking further
responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set
One. (Decl. of Colin M. Harrison at ¶8.) Plaintiff has not subsequently contacted
Defendant’s Counsel to discuss this matter. (Decl. of Colin M. Harrison at ¶8.)
On July 31, 2023,
Defendant filed the instant motion.
MOVING
PARTY POSITION
Defendant Beacon has filed two separate discovery motions
on Plaintiff for: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Request to Form
Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Request Special
Interrogatories, Set One. (collectively “Motions” or
“Discovery Motions.”) Upon review of the
separate motions submitted, the documents for the two motions to compel
responses are identical in substance.
All of the documents contain the same factual allegations and legal
support.
Each
motion request monetary sanctions of $1,810.00, for a total sanction amount of:
$3,620.
Defendants allege that as of the date the Motions were
filed, no discovery responses had been provided to any of the requests.
OPPOSITION
None.
ANALYSIS
A.
Meet and Confer Requirement
A motion¿to compel further responses to requests for
production “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”¿ (Code Civ.
Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).)¿ The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable
and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the
motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.)¿
“The Discovery Act requires that, prior to the initiation
of a motion to compel, the moving party declare that he or she has made a
serious attempt to obtain 'an informal resolution of each issue.” (Stewart
v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). This rule is designed “to
encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid
the necessity for a formal order....”
(McElhaney v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (1982) 134
Cal.App.3d 285, 289.) “This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court
and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through
promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Townsend
v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.)
On July 24, 2023, Defendant’s Counsel sent an
email with meet and confer letters for both motions. (Decl. of Colin M.
Harrison, ¶ 8; Exhibit C.) Defendant’s Counsel noted the lack of verification
and discrepancies with the proof of service. (Decl. of Colin M. Harrison,
Exhibit C.) Plaintiff pro per did not respond to these letters. (Decl. of Colin
M. Harrison, ¶ 8.) Therefore, the meet and confer
requirement was met.
B. Separate Statement
A motion to compel further responses requires a separate
statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) Defendant properly
filed separate statements.
C.
Motion to Compel
Responses to Form Interrogatories–General, Motion to Compel Responses to
Special Interrogatories.
CCP § 2030.300 provides that on receipt of a response to
interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a
further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following
apply:
(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or
incomplete.
(2) An
exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is
unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.
(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or
too general.
Here, Plaintiff
pro per provides no valid reason for the objections. Plaintiff
has made claims about the care he received at Defendant’s Skilled Nursing
Facility and the loss of his vehicle as a result of a fire. Defendant has
propounded discovery to learn about the facts, witnesses, and documents that
Plaintiff contends support these claims, including his claims for damages. However, after receipt of Plaintiff’s
responses, Defendant maintains that the responses are incomplete as the
responses are unresponsive to the questions and requests propounded on
Plaintiff and there is a broad objection to each interrogatory without proper
justification. Further, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition providing
justification for the objection. Therefore, the burden of establishing a valid
objection is not met.
Accordingly, Defendant Beacon’s Motions to compel
further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form
Interrogatories, Set One are GRANTED.¿ Plaintiff is ordered to provide further verified
responses to the requests without objection within twenty (20) days.
D. Monetary Sanctions
Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or
attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further
response, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted
with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition
of the sanction unjust. (CCP §2030.300(d);
CCP §2031.310(h).) The
Court finds sanctions warranted here. Defendant Beacon requests $1,750 per
motion and two $60.00 filing fees.
A court has
discretion to award sanctions that are “suitable and necessary to enable the
party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks” but
they should not be punitive in nature or levied for the purposes of punishing
an offending party. (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545.)
Given the
straightforward nature of Motions to Compel Further, lack of replies by
Plaintiff, and similarity of each motion the Court finds the requested
$1,810.00 in sanctions unreasonable. Defendant
is awarded $750 in attorney fees (two and a half hours to prepare the instant
motions and a half an hour to appear at the hearing). In addition, Defendant is
awarded two motion filing fees of $60, for a total of $120 as costs.¿¿
CONCLUSION
Defendant Beacon’s Motions to compel further
responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set
One are GRANTED.¿ Plaintiff is ordered to provide further verified responses
without objection to the requests within twenty (20) days.
Plaintiff is ordered to
pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total
amount of $870.00, within thirty (30) days.
Moving party to give
notice.