Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV00322, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23AHCV00322 Hearing Date: September 12, 2023 Dept: P
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
NORTHEAST DISTRICT
I. INTRODUCTION
In this action, Plaintiff Chrisoula
Kousoulis sues her former employer, Defendant USC Arcadia Hospital, for workplace
harassment, constructive discharge, and related claims. Kousoulis was employed
as a nuclear medicine technician, preparing radioactive drugs, and
administering them to patients. She alleges that her supervisor bullied and
harassed her about not getting a COVID-19 vaccine, berating her in public about
her private choice to the point that she was forced to resign.
Before the Court is a motion by
Kousoulis for an order compelling USC Arcadia to provide further responses to
several sets of discovery. Due to numerous procedural defects with the motion, it
cannot be granted.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Uncertainty With Regard to the 10-Day Hold
A plaintiff may not serve a defendant with discovery until
10 days after service of the summons and complaint. Code Civ. Proc. §§2030.020(b),
2031.020(b), 2033.020(b).
According to the Declaration of Brady Anderson (which is
somewhat hard to read due to defects in the print), Kousoulis served USC
Arcadia with Requests for Admission, Requests for Production of Documents, Special
Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories - General, and Form Interrogatories -
Employment, on March 14, 2023. No proof of service of the summons and complaint
has been filed. As the Complaint was only filed February 14, 2023, it appears
that discovery may have been served close to the same time. On this record, it
is not possible to tell whether the 10-day hold was honored.
Counsel
for USC Arcadia, Todd Croutch, has submitted a declaration in opposition. He
states that after serving Plaintiff’s counsel with a copy of the answer on
April 6, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel responded by forwarding a set of “e-service”
discovery documents. Croutch Declaration, ¶2. Croutch further states that there
was no mention of the discovery having been served, and no discovery was
enclosed. It was not until May 18, 2023, that Plaintiff’s counsel provided Croutch
with evidence showing that the discovery had been mail served on USC Arcadia’s
agent for service of process on March 14, 2023. Croutch states in his
Declaration that he never received the discovery.
Suffice it to say that by serving discovery before USC
Arcadia appeared and serving it instead on the agent for service of process,
the discovery process got off to a rocky start.
//
//
B. Procedural Defects
As an initial matter, the Court notes that separate motions
are required for each type of discovery propounded. Kousoulis has requested in this one motion
relief as to several sets of discovery. All future motions should be separated out
and relate to only one type of discovery request per motion.
Additionally, motions to compel further responses (such as
this one) must be accompanied by a separate statement. California Rules of
Court, rule 3.1345(a). The separate statement must set forth , “The text of
each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers,” and
“A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses,
answers, or production as to each matter in dispute.” Plaintiff’s generalized
argument that USC Arcadia “served evasive, nonresponsive answers, which
included boilerplate and meritless objections” (Memorandum of Points and
Authorities at 4:24-25) is inadequate. Before issuing an order compelling a
further response, the Court needs to be able to examine the discovery request (e.g.,
interrogatory, request for admission, or document demand) and the response.
Without this necessary information there is no way to perform the required
analysis.
In her Reply, Kousoulis argues that because the responses
were not verified, they are the equivalent of no response at all, such that a
separate statement is not necessary. If the responses were not verified, making
them tantamount to no responses at all per Appleton v. Superior Court
(1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, then the appropriate motion would have been a motion
to compel responses, not a motion for further responses. Having
filed a motion seeking further responses, Kousoulis cannot change direction in
her reply, and seek a different type of relief.
Because the motion is being denied, there is no real basis
for addressing the request for sanctions. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning
for future reference. When sanctions are sought in connection with a discovery
motion, the notice of motion must do the following: (1) identify every
person, party, and attorney against whom a sanction is sought; and (2) specify
the type of sanction sought (i.e., monetary, issue, evidence, terminating). Here,
while the Plaintiff’s motion seeks monetary sanctions, her motion fails to
comply with this notice requirement. Thus, even if the motion could be granted,
the request for sanctions would have to be denied.
The notice of motion is lacking in other respects as well,
as it fails to clearly identify what relief is sought, or the basis for the
relief. Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 4
Cal.App.5th 127, 138 [failure to identify specific interrogatories at issue,
statutory basis for relief requested, and papers on which motion was based
rendered notice defective].
In sum, the motion is plagued with substantial defects.
III. ORDER
Because of the aforementioned procedural defects, the Plaintiff’s
motion to compel further responses is denied. USC Arcadia is ordered to provide
notice of this ruling.
Dated: _______________________________
MARGARET L. OLDENDORF
JUDGE
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT