Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2021-00019542-CU-CR-CTL, Date: 2024-05-10 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 09, 2024

05/10/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Civil Rights Discovery Hearing 37-2021-00019542-CU-CR-CTL DEUSCHEL VS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF REGENTS [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants The Regents of the University of California, Erica Dietrich, R.N., Arbin Wali, M.D., Joel Martin, M.D., and Joseph Ciacci, M.D.'s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories (set one), special interrogatories (set one), and requests for production (set one) from Plaintiff Michael Deuschel is GRANTED.

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion. Pursuant to this court's local rules, this failure to respond will be regarded as a concession that Plaintiff's motion has merit. (See San Diego Superior Court Local Rule 2.1.19, subd. (B).) Defendants reserved a single hearing for May 10, 2024, but filed three separate notices of motion and corresponding memorandums for three separate sets of written discovery, all connected to the same hearing. For motions to compel initial written discovery responses involving multiple sets of written discovery served together and directed at the same party, as here, the court allows (and in most cases, prefers) parties to file a single motion to compel that encompasses each of the simultaneously served written discovery requests. But instead of filing a single motion, Defendants filed three different motions and reserved a hearing for only one motion, which disrupts the court's management of its calendar. The court emphasizes that each notice of motion must correspond to its own hearing reservation. Future motions filed without separate hearing reservations will not be heard. (See San Diego Superior Court Local Rule 2.1.19, subd. (A).) As to Defendants' motion(s), Defendants' counsel attests Plaintiff was properly served sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production on September 22, 2023, but Plaintiff did not serve timely responses, still has not served responses, and effectively ignored multiple efforts to resolve the issue informally.

In the absence of timely responses to interrogatories and requests for production, objections are waived, including objections based on privilege. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) Plaintiff has not provided any reason for refusing to respond to Defendants' discovery requests. Therefore, Plaintiff will be compelled to respond to Defendant' written discovery requests and any objections raised by Defendant are considered waived.

Plaintiff is compelled to provide verified responses to Defendants' form interrogatories (set one), special interrogatories (set one), and requests for production (set one), no later than May 24, 2024.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3085107  11 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DEUSCHEL VS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF REGENTS  37-2021-00019542-CU-CR-CTL Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3085107  11