Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV00346, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV00346    Hearing Date: February 21, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 February 21, 2024¿ 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  23TRCV00346

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Cecilia Tapia De Ulloa, et al. v. Michael K. Newman, M.D., et al.  

¿¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                (1) Defendant, Providence Medical Institute Manhattan Beach Urgent Care

¿¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:       (1) Plaintiff, Edwin J. Ulloa (No opposition)

¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                       April 28, 2025

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff, Edwin J. Ulloa’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

                                                (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff, Edwin J. Ulloa’s responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

                                                (3) Motion to Compel Plaintiff, Edwin J. Ulloa’s responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) GRANTED

                                                (2) GRANTED

                                                (3) GRANTED

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

On February 7, 2023, Plaintiffs, Cecilia Tapia De Ulloa and Edwin J. Ulloa, as individuals and as successors in interest to Natalia C. Ulloa filed a Complaint against Defendants, Michael K. Newman, M.D., South Bay Plastic Surgeons, Inc., Jason K. Ho, M.D., Michael Mercado, M.D., Providence Medical Institute Manhattan Beach Urgent Care, and DOES 1 through 100. The Complaint alleges a cause of action for Medical Malpractice/Wrongful Death and Survival Action.

On September 19, 2023, Defendant, Providence Medical Institute Manhattan Beach Urgent Care (“Providence”) propounded written discovery on Plaintiff, Edwin J. Ulloa. This discovery included Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Defendant Providence notes that Plaintiff’s responses were due on or before October 23, 2023. On October 30, 2023, counsel for Defendant sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel, requesting verified responses, without objection, be received no later than November 6, 2023.

On November 6, 2023, counsel for Defendant Providence, sent a second meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel, requesting verified responses, without objection, be received no later than November 17, 2023. Nonetheless, Defendant Providence asserts that no responses were received, and no extensions were requested. To date, Defendant Providence contends that no responses have been received. Thus, Defendant Providence now files these motions to compel Plaintiff’s discovery responses.

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On December 1, 2023, Defendant Providence filed these Motions to Compel. To date, no opposition has been filed.

¿II. ANALYSIS¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A.    Motions to Compel Responses

Legal Standard

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411

Further, where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required. 

Discussion

            Here, Defendant Providence has asserted that Plaintiff, Edwin J. Ulloa has not submitted any responses. Moreover, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition brief to this motion. As such, the Court issues an order compelling Plaintiff, Edwin J. Ulloa, to submit verified responses to each of Defendant Providence’s propounded discovery, without objections by March 19, 2024.

III. CONCLUSION¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿¿ 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Providence’s Motions to Compel Plaintiff, Edwin J. Ulloa’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One are all GRANTED. The Court orders Edwin to serve Code-compliant, verified answers to the interrogatories, plus a verified written response to the document demands, plus to produce the responsive documents, all without objection, to Providence by March 19, 2024.

Defendant Providence is ordered to give notice.