Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: BC724203, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC724203 Hearing Date: March 8, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On October 4, 2018, Plaintiff Megan Reese (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants California Back and Pain Specialists (“Specialists”), Nova Surgical Institute, Inc. (“Nova”), Vikram Singh, M.D. aka Vikramjeet Singh, M.D. (“Singh”), and Does 1-100 for professional negligence.
On November 21, 2018, Nova filed an answer. On June 1, 2022, the Court dismissed Nova with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On August 30, 2019, Specialists and Singh ("Defendants") filed an answer.
On June 13, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.
On January 31, 2024, Defendants filed motions (1) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to requests for production, set five and (2) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set five. The motions were set for hearing on March 8, 2024. Plaintiff has not filed oppositions.
Trial is currently scheduled for April 15, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendants ask the Court to compel Plaintiff to provide verified code compliant responses, without objections, to requests for production of documents, set five, and special interrogatories, set five.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Inspection demand
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 provides:
“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply:
“(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.
“(c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).
“(d) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as a result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.
“(2) This subdivision shall not be construed to alter any obligation to preserve discoverable information.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)
B. Interrogatories
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 provides:
“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
“(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.
“(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)
DISCUSSION
On May 30, 2023, Defendants served requests for production of documents, set five, and special interrogatories, set five, on Plaintiff.
Plaintiff did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Defendants filed their motions to compel.
The Court grants Defendants' motion to compel responses to the requests for production of documents, set five, and orders Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses, without objections, and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by March 22, 2024.
The Court grants Defendants' motion to compel responses to the special interrogatories, set five, and orders Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses, without objections, by March 22, 2024.
On the Court's own motion, the Court advances the trial and final status conference dates. The Court advances the trial from April 15, 2024 to April 3, 2024. The Court advances the final status conference from March 29, 2024 to March 20, 2024. The Court rules that the discovery cut-off will not apply to Plaintiff's responses to Defendants' special interrogatories, set five, or Plaintiff's responses to Defendants' requests for production of documents, set five, that are due by March 22, 2024.
CONCLUSION
The Court grants the motion of Defendants California Back and Pain Specialists and Vikram Singh, M.D. aka Vikramjeet Singh, M.D. to compel responses to the requests for production of documents, set five, and orders Plaintiff Megan Reese to provide verified code-compliant responses, without objections, and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by March 22, 2024.
The Court grants the motion of Defendants California Back and Pain Specialists and Vikram Singh, M.D. aka Vikramjeet Singh, M.D. to compel responses to the special interrogatories, set five, and orders Plaintiff Megan Reese to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories, without objections, by March 22, 2024.
On the Court's own motion, the Court advances the trial from April 15, 2024 to April 3, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.
On the Court's own motion, the Court advances the final status conference from March 29, 2024 to March 20, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.
On the Court's own motion, the Court rules that the discovery cut-off will not apply to Plaintiff Megan Reese's responses to Defendants' special interrogatories, set five, or to Plaintiff Megan Reese's responses to Defendants' requests for production of documents, set five, that are due by March 22, 2024.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.