Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC08613, Date: 2024-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC08613    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 26

Nissanoff v. Oscar Health Plan of Cal., et al.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.300, 2031.310, 2033.290, 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jonathan Nissanoff’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Discovery Responses is CONTINUED TO MAY 23, 2024. BY APRIL 18, 2024, PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS CORRECTING THE DEFECTS NOTED ABOVE AND PAY THE ADDITIONAL FILING FEES. ANY OPPOSITION AND REPLY PAPERS ARE TO BE FILED PURSUANT TO THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Jonathan Nissanoff (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for common counts and breach of contract against Defendant Oscar Health Plan of California (“Defendant”) on December 27, 2022. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on February 14, 2023.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses on February 20, 2024. Defendant filed an opposition on March 8, 2024 and Plaintiff filed a separate statement on March 11, 2024.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s further responses to the first set of Requests for Admission, and Requests for Production of Documents, and the supplemental set for Interrogatories. (Notice, p. 2:3-7.) The Motion has a number of procedural defects, however.

First, the Motion is not accompanied by a proof of service demonstrating service of the papers or notice of the hearing date on Defendant. Failure to give notice of a motion is not only a violation of the statutory requirements but of due process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.) However, Defendant has filed a substantive opposition that waives any defect in service.

Second, Plaintiff improperly filed a single discovery motion to compel further responses with respect to three separate sets of discovery: the first sets of Request for Admissions and Request for Production of Documents, and the supplemental Interrogatories. Filing the requests as a single motion negatively impacts the Court’s calendar by placing more motions on the calendar than slots have been provided by the online reservation system. Furthermore, it allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Statutorily required filing fees are jurisdictional and “it is mandatory for the court clerks to demand and receive statutorily required filing fees.” (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Plaintiff’s motion, therefore, cannot be heard in full until two additional motion reservations are made and the corresponding filing fees are paid.

Finally, although the Motion addresses the separate statement requirement under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 and contends that a separate statement is attached, no such document was included in the Motion filed with the Court. The separate statement was only filed on March 11, 2024, and apparently served on Defendant on March 10, 2024. (Separate Statement, filed 03/11/24, p. 28.) This does not satisfy the requirement of due process, as set forth above.

Conclusion

Therefore, Plaintiff Jonathan Nissanoff’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Discovery Responses is CONTINUED TO MAY 23, 2024. BY APRIL 18, 2024, PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS CORRECTING THE DEFECTS NOTED ABOVE AND PAY THE ADDITIONAL FILING FEES. ANY OPPOSITION AND REPLY PAPERS ARE TO BE FILED PURSUANT TO THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

Court clerk to give notice.