Judge Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case 37-2020-00019438-CU-MM-CTL 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2020-00019438-CU-MM-CTL, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 18, 2024

01/19/2024 01:30:00 PM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Medical Malpractice Discovery Hearing 37-2020-00019438-CU-MM-CTL ELASALI VS REGENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 05/15/2023

A. Defendant's unopposed motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The motion is denied as to form interrogatory 2.9. A sufficient response has been provided.

The motion is granted as to form interrogatories 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, and 14.1. Plaintiff's responses are evasive and incomplete. If plaintiff does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, he must 'make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations[.]' Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c). The fact that plaintiff is self-represented does not excuse him from complying with his discovery obligations. See Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284 ('[P]ro per litigants are not entitled to special exemptions from the California Rules of Court or Code of Civil Procedure.').

The motion is granted as to form interrogatories 2.12, 2.13, 4.1, 4.2, 11.1, and 11.2. '[T]he burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.' Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541. Here, by failing to oppose the motion, plaintiff has not met his burden of justifying the objections to form interrogatories 2.12, 2.13, 4.1, 4.2, 11.1, and 11.2. Accordingly, the objections are overruled.

In sum, plaintiff must serve further verified responses to form interrogatories 2.12, 2.13, 4.1, 4.2, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 9.1, 9.2, 11.1, 11.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, and 14.1 by February 16, 2024.

B. Defendant's unopposed motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED.

Plaintiff's responses to special interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 16, 20, and 28 are evasive and incomplete. See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c).

The objections to special interrogatories 14, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, and 32 are overruled. Plaintiff has not met his burden of justifying any of the objections. See Williams, 3 Cal.5th at 541.

The objections to special interrogatories 35, 38, 39, and 40 are likewise overruled. Special interrogatory 35 does not violate the so-called 'Rule of 35.' See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.030(a)(1). Moreover, special interrogatories 38, 39, and 40 are supported by a 'declaration of necessity.' Code Civ. Proc. §§ Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3036806 54 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ELASALI VS REGENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 37-2020-00019438-CU-MM-CTL 2030.040(a), 2030.050. Under such circumstances, plaintiff was required to seek a protective order if he believed the number of special interrogatories was unwarranted. See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.040(a), 2030.090(b)(2); see also Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group), at ¶ 8:956.

Finally, with respect to special interrogatory 34, plaintiff failed to provide a timely response to this interrogatory. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).

Accordingly, plaintiff must serve a verified response to special interrogatory 34 without objections by February 16, 2024. Plaintiff must also serve further verified responses to special interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11,14, 16, 20, 22, 23, 24, 28, 30, 31, 32, 35, 38, 39, and 40 by the same date.

C. Defendant's unopposed motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents is GRANTED.

Plaintiff's responses to requests 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 24 do not comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230.

The objections to requests 13, 14, 15, 17, and 22 are overruled. Plaintiff has not met his burden of justifying any of the objections. See Williams, 3 Cal.5th at 541.

In sum, plaintiff must serve further verified responses to requests 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 by February 16, 2024. In addition, to the extent that any documents are responsive to the subject requests, plaintiff must produce such documents by the same date.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3036806 54