Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV19039, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV19039 Hearing Date: August 23, 2023 Dept: 55
BUTAKOV
v. KECK MEDICAL CENTER OF USC 22STCV19039
Hearing Date: 8/23/23,
Dept. 55
#9:
1. MOTION
FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS.
2. MOTION
TO TERMINATE SANCTIONS AND COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,
AND REQUEST FROM PRODUCTIONS OF DOCUMENTS FROM ALL DEFENDANTS.
Notice: Okay
Opposition
MP:
1. Defendant
ANDREAS MAUER, MD.
RP:
1. Plaintiff
PAUL BUTAKOV (opposing via cross-motion).
2. Defendants
Summary
On 6/10/22, Plaintiff PAUL BUTAKOV, a
self-represented litigant, filed a Complaint for Medical Negligence, alleging that,
in June 2020, Plaintiff underwent vessel coronary artery bypass at HUNTINGTON
HOSPITAL, and thereafter experienced a clicking noise in his chest, which
thereafter was discovered to be an improperly closed chest plate by doctors at
KECK MEDICAL CENTER OF USC.
MP
Positions
Defendant
Moving party requests an order granting terminating
sanctions against Plaintiff, on grounds including the following:
·
The court ordered that plaintiff provide
verified responses, without objections and, and pay a total of $1,580.00 in
sanctions within thirty (30) days. DR. MAUER filed and served the Notices of
Ruling on February 24, 223. (Exhibits F and G).
·
No responses have been received from
plaintiff, nor has payment of sanctions been made.
Plaintiff
Moving party requests an order vacating defendants’
discovery motions, on bases including the following:
·
Plaintiff finally recovered from health
issues sufficiently to be able to respond to the demand for production and
interrogatories requested by defendants, but needs additional time, as he is
working pro per and he is being bombarded by the defendants’ discovery.
·
Due to health issues, and being in-and-out
of the hospital, Plaintiff has been unable to respond to the discovery motions.
·
The defendants have been fully aware of
Plaintiff’s health issues, yet continued to file motions.
·
Plaintiff has not been able
to attend court hearings due to doctor’s appointments scheduled on the same
date as court hearings, which could not be rescheduled due to life-threatening
health concerns.
·
Medical records are attached to
Plaintiff’s motion in support.
RP Positions
Plaintiff
Opposing party advocates relief from all discovery
motions and more time to serve discovery responses, based upon the motion
already summarized above.
Defendants
Defendants’ advocate denying Plaintiff’s motion
regarding relief from discovery obligations, for reasons including the
following:
·
Plaintiff failed to show his failure to
respond to any discovery propounded by the USC Defendants was due to mistake,
inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
·
Plaintiff is not entitled to relief or
more lenient treatment by the Court based on being self-represented.
·
Plaintiff provided a doctor’s note dated
March 2, 2023 supporting his claim that he was unable to “handle his financial
or personal affairs at this time.” However, this note is dated months after the
deadline to respond to discovery had passed, and this note was never provided
to defense counsel prior to Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief.
·
The only documentation provided with
respect to DR. MAUER’S motions indicates that plaintiff was hospitalized from
February 24, 2023, to March 2, 2023. The document is signed by a hospital social
worker, not a physician.
·
There is no evidence as to why Plaintiff
has not been able to produce the requested discovery responses in the almost
six months since the Court issued the order.
Tentative
Ruling
The hearing on Defendant’s and Plaintiff’s motions are
continued to 10/30/23, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 55.
All parties may serve and file supplemental documents
on or before 10/20/23.
Plaintiff shall have until 10/30/23 to serve all due discovery
responses upon defendants.
The Court intends to consider the motions after
Plaintiff has had extra time to serve the discovery responses, in light of
evidence that Plaintiff’s ill health has delayed responses to voluminous
discovery requests.
As a matter of calendar management, courts have
discretion as to whether to continue a motion to consider additional filings. Farber v. Bay View Terrace Homeowners Assn.
(2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1007, 1015.
Serious illnesses
of parties generally are good cause for granting continuances, or extensions of
cut-off dates. Hernandez v. Sup. Ct.
(2004) 115 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1247-48 (finding abuse of discretion as to trial
court denial of request to reopen discovery, where counsel was seriously ill).
“[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not
authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to
comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.”
Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986)
180 Cal. App. 3d 701, 707. An order
imposing ultimate sanctions may be an abuse of discretion, as being excessive
under the particular circumstances. E.g., Motown Record Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (1984)
155 Cal. App. 3d 482, 490
Discretionary relief under CCP Section 473 applies to
any proceeding, such as failures to meet procedural deadlines. Huh v. Wang (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th
1406, 1419. Parties are not entitled to
relief under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473, merely based upon being a
self-represented litigant. Burnete v.
La Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 1262, 1267-71.
*IF ALL PARTIES SUBMIT ON THE COURT’S TENTATIVE
RULING, PLEASE CALL THE COURTROOM AT 213-633-0655*