Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23GDCV00513, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23GDCV00513 Hearing Date: February 23, 2024 Dept: V
ELOISE FERRER, et al.; Plaintiffs, vs. ADVENTIST HEALTH
GLENDALE; Defendant.
Case No.: 23GDCV00513
Hearing Date:
February 23, 2024
Time: 9:00 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
(1) DEFENDANT GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER DBA
ADVENTIST HEALTH GLENDALE’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF ELOISE FERRER’S
RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;
(2) DEFENDANT GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER DBA
ADVENTIST HEALTH GLENDALE’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF PATRICK FERRER’S
RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
MOVING PARTIES:
(1) Defendant Glendale Adventist Medical Center Dba
Adventist Health Glendale
(2) Defendant Glendale Adventist Medical Center Dba
Adventist Health Glendale
RESPONDING PARTY: None
Motions to Compel Plaintiffs’ Responses to Interrogatories
The court considered
the moving papers filed in connection with both motions. No oppositions were
filed.
BACKGROUND
On March 14, 2023,
Plaintiffs Eloise and Patrick Ferrer (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against
Defendant Adventist Health Glendale (“Defendant”). On May 5, 2023, Plaintiffs
filed operative First Amended Complaint for negligence. On November 13, 2023,
Defendant filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to
interrogatories. No oppositions have been filed.
LEGAL STANDARD
Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery
requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare
Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve
timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on
privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§
2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Unlike a motion to compel further
responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit
and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko
Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)) Where the
court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against
the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the
party acted with substantial justification, or the sanction would otherwise be
unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Where a party fails to
provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t is mandatory that
the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response
to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2033.280, subd. (c).)
DISCUSSION
Defendant served with the subject discovery requests on
Plaintiffs with responses that were due on or before September 8, 2023
(Schofield Decls., ¶3.) Plaintiffs did not serve responses or request an
extension. (Id.) Defendant attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiffs and
agreed to multiple extensions, but responses were never served. (Id. at ¶¶4-7.)
Plaintiffs did not oppose the motions to compel. Based on the foregoing, the
court GRANTS the motions. Plaintiffs are to provide responses within twenty
(20) days of the date of this Order. Further, sanctions are imposed against
each Plaintiff in the amount of $280 based on 1 hour at defense counsel’s
hourly rate of $220 and $60 in filing fees, to be paid within twenty (20) days
of the date of this Order. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 23, 2024
_____________________________
Sarah J. Heidel Judge of the Superior Court