Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23BBCV01010, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01010    Hearing Date: December 3, 2024    Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

DEBORAH AMELON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DR. SOLYMANIJAM, M.D.; CONSULTANTS FOR LUNG DISEASE MEDICAL GROUP, INC. AND DOES 1 TO 10, Defendants.

Case No.: 23BBCV0101, Related Case No.: 23BBCV01010 BC619869

Hearing Date: December 3, 2024

Time: 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS OF ROBIN SOLYMANIJAM, M.D. FOR ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

MOVING PARTIES: Defendant ROBIN SOLYMANIJAM, M.D.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

This is a medical malpractice action. Plaintiff Deborah Amelon filed the complaint against defendants Dr. Solymanijam, M.D. and Consultants for Lung Diseases Medical Group, Inc., erroneously sued and served as Consultants for Lung Disease Medical Group, Inc. on May 5, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that in January and February 2015, defendant treated plaintiff for chest soreness and related complaints, including ordering and interpreting a CT angiogram of plaintiff’s chest, a Nuclear Medicine Ventilation and Perfusion Scan. Plaintiff alleges defendant erroneously diagnosed plaintiff with pulmonary emboli when plaintiff did not have pulmonary emboli. As a result, plaintiff was treated for pulmonary emboli for almost five months. Plaintiff alleges she suffered severe and permanent injury as well as emotional and mental distress as a result of the misdiagnosis.

Defendant Robin Solymanijam, M.D. (defendant) filed the instant motions on July 18, 2024. No opposition has been received.

LEGAL STANDARD

A plaintiff may propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).)

The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service of a demand, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.270, subd. (a) - (b).)

Where there has been no timely response to interrogatories, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (b).) If a party fails to timely respond to interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant served Judicial Council Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One on April 12, 2024, via email. (Steinberg Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6; Exhs. A, B.) Plaintiff’s responses were due May 14, 2024. Defenant’s counsel followed up with plaintiff’s counsel regarding the responses to no avail. (Steinberg Decl., ¶¶ 8, 9; Exhs. D, E.) Plaintiff has

not provided verified responses. As defendant served discovery properly and plaintiff has failed to provide verified responses, the court orders plaintiff to provide verified responses to form and special interrogatories.

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS defendant’s motions to compel responses to form and special interrogatories. The court orders plaintiff to serve verified responses by December 23, 2004.