Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV36552, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV36552    Hearing Date: July 28, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

NOTE:  2 TENTATIVE RULINGS BELOW

TENTATIVE RULING - NO . 1

MOTIONS

            Defendant Vera David moves to compel responses from plaintiff Taylor Schwartz to: (1) Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, set one (“Supp. RPD”) and (2) Supplemental  Interrogatories, set one (“Supp. ROG”). Defendant seeks monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff has not file oppositions to the motions.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he 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 the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a)-(b).)  

            Similarly, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it . . . [t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subds. (a)-(b).)  

Here, Defendant served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiff on January 5, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by February 8, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the Supp. RPD and Supp. ROG.

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the subject discovery requests to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d); 2030.290, subd. (c); and 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Dufour Law, P.C., in the amount of $600.51, which represents 3 hours of attorney time to prepare the motions attend the hearing at $160.17 per hour, plus the filing fees at $60 per motion. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the Supp. RPD and Supp. ROG per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.300 and 2030.290, and orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the Supp. RPD and Supp. ROG, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders. 

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Dufour Law, P.C., jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $600.51 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING - NO. 2

MOTION

              Defendant Vera David moves to compel plaintiff Taylor Schwartz to submit to an independent medical examination by Neeraj Gupta, M.D. (“Gupta”).  Defendant requests monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.  

ANALYSIS

            When the physical condition of the plaintiff is in controversy in a personal injury case, the defendant may obtain a physical examination of the plaintiff.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2032.020, 2032.220.)  A defendant is entitled to one physical examination of the plaintiff in a personal injury action on demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subd. (a).) 

Here, on January 5, 2022, Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s examination for February 16, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. with Gupta.  Plaintiff failed to appear for examination on that date.  As of the filing date of this motion, Plaintiff has not appeared for examination. 

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to appear for examination to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d); 2032.410.)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Dufour Law, P.C., in the amount of $1,180.34, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $160.17 per hour, plus the filing fee of $60 and Gupta’s non-appearance fee of $800. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel the physical examination of Plaintiff, and orders Plaintiff to appear for examination by Gupta within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders, unless Defendant stipulate otherwise.  The nature and scope of the examination is as set forth in the notice issued by Defendant on January 5, 2022. 

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Dufour Law, P.C, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,180.34 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.