Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 21STCV31632, Date: 2024-05-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 21STCV31632, Date: 2024-05-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31632 Hearing Date: May 21, 2024 Dept: 6

CASE NAME: Nicholas Muso, et al. v. Sevadham Management, LP, et al.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion as to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and orders Sevadham to provide verified, code-compliant, objection-free responses, including all responsive documents, to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, within 30 days of the Court’s order.

Plaintiffs are ordered to immediately file a separate motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and a separate motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and pay the applicable filing fees forthwith. Once the motions have been filed and the filing fees paid, the Court will GRANT Plaintiffs’ motions with respect to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One. Otherwise, the motion will be denied without prejudice as to those two sets of discovery requests. Assuming Plaintiffs timely pay the respective filing fees, Sevadham must provide verified, code-compliant responses, without objections, to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 30 days of the Court’s order.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is an elder abuse and wrongful death action. On August 26, 2021, plaintiff Patricia Muso, individually and as representative of decedent Nicholas Muso (collectively, Plaintiffs), filed this action against defendants Sevadham Management, LP dba Mountain View Centers Claremont Memory Care (Sevadham), Does 1 through 25, plus Nicholas Anthony Muso and Kathryn Muso as nominal defendants, alleging causes of action for dependent adult abuse and neglect, violation of patient rights, negligence, and wrongful death.

On April 26, 2024, Plaintiffs moved to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One. The motion is unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD

When a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… 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.” (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

When a party fails to serve a timely response to an inspection demand, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction… 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.” (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

The Court notes that Plaintiffs filed this motion on April 26, 2024, but the deadline for filing it was April 25, 2024 based on the May 21, 2024 hearing date due to Plaintiffs serving the motion electronically. (See Motion, p. 10 of pdf; Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b); Id., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).) The Court also notes, however, that the proof of service indicates service was completed on April 25, 2024. (See Motion, p. 10 of pdf.) The Court therefore exercises its discretion to still consider Plaintiffs’ motion, but admonishes Plaintiffs to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure going forward. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subd. (d).)

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

Although meeting and conferring is not required before bringing motions to compel, (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404), the Court appreciates Plaintiffs’ efforts to meet and confer with Sevadham before bringing this motion. (Oghassabian Decl., ¶¶ 8-9; see Dept. 6 Courtroom Information [“Parties are required to meet and confer prior to filing any motion.”])

Analysis

Plaintiffs indicate they served Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on Sevadham on June 13, 2023. (Oghassabian Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Exs. A, B.) Sevadham has not responded to the requests, despite Plaintiffs’ meet-and-confer efforts. (Oghassabian Decl., ¶¶ 4-9, Exs. C, D, E.) The Court finds Plaintiffs’ motion to be well taken.

However, the Court notes that Plaintiffs only paid one motion filing fee for what should have been three separate motions, i.e., one for each set of discovery requests. (See Motion, p. 8 of pdf.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion as to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and orders Sevadham to provide verified, code-compliant, objection-free responses, including all responsive documents, to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, within 30 days of the Court’s order.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.