Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV32018, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling
Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 74 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept74@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative.
IF THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT RECEIVE AN EMAIL INDICATING THE PARTIES ARE SUBMITTING ON THE TENTATIVE RULING AND THERE ARE NO APPEARANCES AT THE HEARING, THE MOTION WILL BE PLACED OFF CALENDAR.
If you decide not to submit on the tentative ruling, REMOTE APPEARANCES ARE AUTHORIZED AND STRONGLY ENCOURAGED. Please visit the court’s Here for You | Safe for You News Center for the latest orders governing court business. http://www.lacourt.org/newsmedia/ui/HfySfy.aspx
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind: The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record. Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply repeat that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated. If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.
Case Number: 21STCV32018 Hearing Date: August 22, 2022 Dept: 74
21STCV32018 ANGELA
WILSON vs SHLOMO RECHNITZ
(1) Defendant Rockport Administrative Services’ 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) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further
Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two; Request for Sanctions in the
Amount of $1,996.00 against Plaintiff and her Attorney of Record
TENTATIVE RULINGS:
Defendants’
Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set
Two; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,996.00 against Plaintiff and her
Attorney of Record is OFF-CALENDAR at the request of the moving parties.
Defendant
Rockport Administrative Services’ 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 $280.00
payable to Defendant Rockport Administrative Services via its counsel of record
within 60 days.
Plaintiff is ordered to provide further verified,
code compliant responses to Special Interrogatory No. 3 in Defendant Rockport Administrative Services’ 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, Defendant
Rockport Administrative Services filed its motion to compel a further response to Special Interrogatories, Set One,
Special Interrogatory Number 3.
All Defendants also filed a motion to compel further
responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Numbers 19, 20, 21, 28 and 29.
Opposition
In her oppositions, Plaintiff contends her response
to Special Interrogatory, Set One, Number 3 is code compliant, she provided
supplemental responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Numbers 19, 21, 28
and 29, and her objections to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Number 20 was
proper.
Reply
Defendant Rockport
Administrative Services filed a substantive reply to its motion to compel as to
Special Interrogatory Number 3, reiterating its arguments from the initial
motion that Plaintiff’s response is not sufficient.
On August 15, 2022, Defendants filed their Notice of
Withdrawal of their motion to compel further responses to Special
Interrogatories, Set Two.
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, Defendant served its 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 Decl. ¶ 5.)
Plaintiff did not provide supplemental responses and Defendant filed the
instant motion.
Special Interrogatories, Set One,
Special Interrogatory No. 3
Special Interrogatory No. 3 served by Defendant
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 its separate statement, Defendant contends
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. Stmt. 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
Defendant’s interrogatory. (Opp. at 4:17-5:3 (“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 Defendant that Plaintiff’s response is evasive and not code
compliant. 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 motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to
provide further verified, code compliant responses without objection within 30
days that identify each responsive writing.
Special Interrogatories, Set Two
In opposition, Plaintiff noted she provided
supplemental responses to all but one of the special interrogatories at issue.
On August 15, 2022, Defendants filed their Notice of
Withdrawal of their motion to compel further responses to Special
Interrogatories, Set Two.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel further
responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two is taken OFF-CALENDAR at the
request of the moving parties.
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.”
Defendant seeks $1,886.00 in connection with its
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 Decl. ¶ 8.)
The
Court finds the sanction request excessive. The instant motion and reply are
duplicative to the other motions and replies filed by other Defendants
regarding Special Interrogatory No. 3, which were set for hearing on August 17,
2022. The Court finds a reasonable and appropriate sanction to be $280.00
consisting of one hour of attorney time and the $60.00 filing fee.