Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 21STCV21293, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 21STCV21293    Hearing Date: January 31, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 1/31/24                                                              TRIAL DATE: 5/28/24

Case #21STCV21293

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Special Interrogatories, Set 1)

Motion filed on 9/14/23.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Keolis Transit America, Inc. (Doe 1)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Phyllis R. Ginolfi, by and through her Conservator, Christin C. Solis

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to Defendant Keolis Transit America, Inc.’s (Keolis) Special Interrogatories, Set 1, Nos. 11, 19, 13, 31, 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 65, 68 and 71.  Additionally, Keolis requests sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, Steven C. Gambardella, in the amount of $1,800.00.

RULING: The motion is granted as set forth below.   

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On 6/7/21, Plaintiff Phyllis R. Ginolfi, by and through her Conservator, Christin C. Solis (Plaintiff) filed this action against Right Choice In-Home Care, Inc. and GMA Management Group, Inc. dba Pacoima Adult Day Care for dependent adult/elder abuse and negligence.  On 3/15/23, Plaintiff filed a Doe Amendment naming Defendant Keolis Transit America, Inc. as Doe 1 (Keolis).

On 6/1/23, Keolis served the subject discovery on Plaintiff.  (Tran Decl.).  Plaintiff failed to provide timely responses.  Id.  On 7/24/23, Plaintiff served responses which Keolis deemed to be deficient.  Id.  After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the issues Keolis had with the responses, on 9/14/23, Keolis filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to Keolis’ Special Interrogatories, Set 1, Nos. 11, 19, 13, 31, 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 65, 68 and 71.  Additionally, Keolis requests sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, Steven C. Gambardella, in the amount of $1,800.00.  Id.  Plaintiff has not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion.

ANALYSIS

CCP 2030.220 provides:

“(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.

(c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”

Responses to interrogatories are due within 30 days after service of the interrogatories.  CCP 2030.260(a).

CCP 2030.290 provides, in relevant part:

“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). . . .”

Upon receipt of responses to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the propounding party deems that an answer is evasive or incomplete.  CCP 2030.300(a).

In response to Special Interrogatory 10, Plaintiff stated that she did receive Social Security Disability benefits (SSD).  Special Interrogatory 11 asks if Plaintiff was receiving Social SSD to state: (a) the date she applied for SSD, (b) the date she was awarded SSD, (c) the time period she had been receiving SSD, (d) the nature of the injury Plaintiff claimed that resulted in the award of SSD and (e) the date the injury occurred for which SSD was awarded.  Plaintiff’s response of “unknown” to subsections (a)-(c) is insufficient as there is no indication that Plaintiff made any effort to obtain the information as required by CCP 2030.220.  The information is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and damages in this case.

Special Interrogatories 13, 31, 36 and 37 ask for information regarding Plaintiff’s medical history for the last seven years (i.e., where/from whom she received evaluations, diagnoses, care, treatment).  Plaintiff’s 7/24/23 responses to the interrogatories served on 6/1/23 were untimely.  Therefore, Plaintiff waived the right to exercise the option to produce writings under CCP 2030.230 as Plaintiff has done in response to these interrogatories.  CCP 2030.290(a).  Similarly, Plaintiff waived the right to object by claiming that the information is equally available to Keolis. 

Special Interrogatory 19 asks Plaintiff to provide the dates of her residency at all board and care facilities, nursing facilities, adult day care facilities and/or residential care facilities that Plaintiff was a patient or resident at any time.  Plaintiff’s response is incomplete and evasive.  Plaintiff has not met her obligation to make a reasonable inquiry to obtain the necessary information. 

Special Interrogatories 40, 41 and 44 ask for information regarding Plaintiff’s medical expenses and medical special damages.  As noted above, since Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the interrogatories, her reference to documents in response to these interrogatories is insufficient.  CCP 2030.290(a).

Special Interrogatories 65, 68 and 71 ask for information regarding persons that have knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s claim that Keolis’ staff was incompetent, Keolis’ conduct was a willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and safety and that Plaintiff was carelessly dropped on the bathroom floor.  Again, Plaintiff’s reference to documents is improper due to her untimely responses.  CCP 2030.290(a).

Keolis is entitled to an award of sanctions against Plaintiff and her attorney, Steven C. Gambardella, for their failure to comply with their discovery obligations.  CCP 2023.010(h), (i); CCP 2023.030; 2030.300(d).  However, the sanctions requested, $1,800.00, are reduced to $1,200.00 (1 hour to prepare the motion + 2 hours to prepare the separate statement + ½ hour to prepare for the hearing + ½ hour to appear = 3 hours multiplied by $300/hour).   

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.  Further responses are due and sanctions are payable within 15 days.