Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV32018, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32018    Hearing Date: August 17, 2022    Dept: 74

21STCV32018           ANGELA WILSON vs SHLOMO RECHNITZ

(1) Defendant Shlomo Rechnitz’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,886.00 against Plaintiff and her Attorney of Record

(2) Defendant Healthcare Center of Downey’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,886.00 against Plaintiff and her Attorney of Record

TENTATIVE RULINGS:

(1)  Defendant Shlomo Rechnitz’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,886.00 against Plaintiff and her Attorney of Record is GRANTED.  Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d), the Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $423.00 payable to Defendant Shlomo Rechnitz via his counsel of record within 60 days.

(2)  Defendant Healthcare Center of Downey’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,886.00 against Plaintiff and her Attorney of Record is GRANTED.  Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d), the Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $643.00 payable to Defendant Healthcare Center of Downey via its counsel of record within 60 days. 

Plaintiff is ordered to provide further verified, code compliant responses to Special Interrogatory No. 3 in Defendants Rechnitz and Healthcare Center of Downey’s Special Interrogatories, Set One without objection within 30 days that identify each responsive writing.

Background

On August 30, 2021, Plaintiff Angela Shalome Streat Wilson, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Megan Frilot filed this action against Defendants Shlomo Rechnitz, The Healthcare Center of Down, LLC, Rechnitz Lakewood GP, Rockport Administrative Services, and Steven Stroll. The complaint alleged two causes of action: (1) Dependent Adult Abuse and (2) Negligent Hiring and Supervision. The complaint alleges that the Defendants, through various entities, aided and abetted wrongful acts and omissions at the direction of Shlomo Rechnitz, resulting in Plaintiff, a dependent adult, eloping from the facility and being allowed to roam the streets for two months. Defendants allegedly failed to staff enough individuals, hired unqualified employees, and provided sub-standard care to the patients, including Plaintiff.  

Motions

On May 3, 2022, Defendants Shlomo Rechnitz and Healthcare Center of Downey each separately filed motions to compel a further response to their Special Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatory No. 3. 

Opposition

On August 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant Healthcare Center of Downey’s motion contending its response to Defendants’ Special Interrogatory No. 3 is sufficient and code compliant.

On August 11, 2022, after Defendant Rechnitz filed a notice of non-opposition, Plaintiff filed her untimely opposition to Defendant Rechnitz’s motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(c).) The untimely opposition was substantively identical to that filed in response to Defendant Healthcare Center of Downey’s motion.

Reply

On August 10, 2022, Defendant Rechnitz filed a notice of non-opposition and Defendant Healthcare Center of Downey filed a substantive reply.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories

Standard

The propounding party may bring a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories if it believes the responses received are evasive or incomplete, the attempt to produce writings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 is unwarranted or inadequate, or if the objections raised are meritless or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a).) The motion must be accompanied by a good-faith meet and confer declaration, (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040), and be accompanied by a separate statement. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1345.) The opposing party bears the burden of justifying any objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 97-98.)

Unless extended, the motion must be filed within 45 days of service of the responses. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2016.050; 2030.300(c); Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 (“the time within which to make a motion to compel . . . is mandatory and jurisdictional.”).)

Background of Discovery and Meet and Confer

On February 11, 2022, Defendants served their Special Interrogatories, Set One upon Plaintiff. (Nilssen Decl. Ex. A.) Plaintiff served unverified responses on March 15, 2022. (Id. Ex. B.) On April 27, 2022, Defendants sent a meet and confer letter noting Plaintiff had not served verifications and that Plaintiff’s response to Special Interrogatory No. 3 was insufficient. (Id. Ex. C.) Plaintiff provided verifications on April 28, 2022. (Nilssen Decls. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff did not provide supplemental responses and Defendant filed the instant motion.

Special Interrogatory No. 3

Special Interrogatory No. 3 served by both Defendants requests that Plaintiff “[i]dentify each writing as defined by Evidence Code section 250 that evidences, relates or refers to the facts upon which you base your claim against this specific propounding party for Dependent Adult Abuse/Neglect (presently the First Cause of Action) as stated in the OPERATIVE COMPLAINT.” Plaintiff responded to the interrogatory as follows:

Plaintiff avails herself of the right to produce documents in lieu of providing a written response, as per California Code of Civil Procedure 2030.210(a)(2). Attached hereto as Exhibit “1” are the medical records for Plaintiff from the Defendant Facility; as Exhibit “2” is the College Medical Center medical record for Plaintiff from August 16, 2021 through February 1, 2022; as Exhibit “3” are the documents produced by the Defendants in this matter, as Exhibit “4” is the 2020 OSHPD of the Defendant Facility; and as Exhibit “5” is the Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One to Defendant The Healthcare Center of Downey, LLC from which Plaintiff identifies each and every document requested. Discovery continues.

(Nilssen Decl. Ex. B.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 provides:

If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. The responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230.) A propounding may file a motion to compel further responses where it contends “[a]n exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.”

In their separate statements, Defendants contend Plaintiff’s response “nam[ed] a ton of documents obviously not responsive including plaintiff’s entire facility record and the plaintiff’s records from College Medical Center – over 7,000 pages of records total” noting the documents identified include blank forms, television purchases, and abbreviations in a nursing manual.” (Sep. Stmts. at 2-3.) Thus, “Defendants have no way of knowing what these vague documents are that plaintiff is referring to or what pages of those vague documents are responsive.” (Id. at 3.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues her response is warranted given the breadth of Defendants’ interrogatory. (Opp. at 4:14-27 (“when asked to provide every writing that “evidences, relates or refers” to facts upon which Plaintiff is basing her claim for Dependent Adult Abuse, the Defendant is not asking for specific documents to support specific contentions, but is asking for every possible document that could support, or relate to said support of, Plaintiff’s entire claim. . . . Had Defendant made a request with specificity, the response would have been made with specificity.”).)

The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff’s response is not code compliant and evasive. The special interrogatory requests that Plaintiff “identify each writing,” which is a permissible request in an interrogatory. “If an interrogatory asks the responding party to identify a document, an adequate response must include a description of the document.” (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 293.) Plaintiff’s reference to “exhibits” consisting or large collections of documents such as the “medical records” for Plaintiff, documents produced by every Defendant, and every document requested by Plaintiff from Defendants in this action is improper. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783–784 (“it is not proper to answer by stating, ‘See my deposition’, ‘See my pleading’, or ‘See the financial statement’. . . . A broad statement that the information is available from a mass of documents is insufficient.”).)

The motions are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further verified, code compliant responses without objection within 30 days that identify each responsive writing.  

Sanctions

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d), “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Each Defendant seeks $1,886.00 in connection with their motion, consisting of 3.3 hours drafting the motion and 5 hours for the reply and hearing at a rate of $220.00 per hour as well as the $60.00 filing fee. (Nilssen Decls. ¶ 8.)

The Court finds the sanction request excessive. The motions are identical, rendering the sanction request duplicative. Additionally, the anticipated five hours for the replies and hearing is unreasonable. Defendant Rechnitz did not file a substantive reply and the reply filed by Defendant Healthcare Center of Downey consisted of less than three pages that merely reiterated its prior argument. The Court finds only one hour of attorney time for the reply and hearing for Defendant Healthcare Center of Downey to be reasonable.

For the Rechnitz motion, the Court finds a reasonable and appropriate sanction to be $423.00 consisting of 1.65 hours of attorney time at a rate of $220.00 per hour and the $60.00 filing fee.

For the Healthcare Center of Downey motion, the Court finds a reasonable and appropriate sanction to be $643.00 consisting of 2.65 hours of attorney time at a rate of $220.00 per hour and the $60.00 filing fee.