Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV13785, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV13785 Hearing Date: December 21, 2022 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
21STCV13785 Sandoval, et
al. v. Hadadian, et al.
Motion for an Order
Advancing the Hearing Date on Defendant’s Motions to Compel Plaintiffs’
Discovery Responses filed by Defendant Sedi Hadadian, M.D. is GRANTED.
Background
This is an action for medical malpractice.
On April 21, 2021, Plaintiffs Zavion Sandoval, a minor, by an through his
Guardian ad Litem, Mariana Sandoval, and Mariana Sandoval (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) initiated this action against Defendants Sedi Hadadian, M.D.,
Farid Yasharpour, M.D., Valley Presbyterian Hospital, and Does 1 through 100,
alleging two causes of action for negligence.
On June 8, 2021, Defendant Valley Presbyterian Hospital filed its answer. On
July 1, 2021, Defendant Sadi Hadadian, M.D. filed his answer to the complaint.
On July 28, 2021, Plaintiffs attempted to amend their complaint without leave
to amend, but the filing was rejected because answers had been filed in this
action, requiring leave of court.
On August 17, 2021, Defendant Farid Yasharpour, M.D. filed his answer to the
complaint.
On February 1, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to be
relieved as counsel.
On November 9, 2022, the Court denied Defendant Sedi Hadadian, M.D.’s ex parte
application to advance the hearing dates on his motions to compel Plaintiffs’
discovery responses. Thereafter, Defendant Sedi Hadadian, M.D. (hereinafter,
“Movant”) filed the instant motion seeking the same relief as his prior ex
parte application.
No opposition has been filed.
Legal
Standard
“Courts have inherent authority to control their own calendars and docket.” (Walker
v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 267; see also Code Civ. Proc. §
128(a).)
Discussion
Movant moves to advance the hearing dates of five discovery motions that are
all set to be heard on May 22, 2023 to January 18, 2023 or the next available
date on the Court’s calendar.
Movant indicates that he propounded discovery responses on Plaintiffs through
their counsel of record when they were still represented, which was on July 1,
2021. (Gunther Decl. ¶ 4.) However, Plaintiffs have yet to serve any responses.
(Motion at pg. 6; Gunther Decl. ¶¶ 5-7.) Consequently, Movant intends to move
to compel these discovery responses. However, Movant further indicates that the
earliest available date available in the Court Reservation System for these
discovery motions was May 22, 2023, which is after the date for Movant’s motion
for summary judgment, which is set for May 15, 2023. (Motion at pg. 6; Gunther
Decl. ¶ 8.) As a result, Movant contends that without any discovery responses
he will be precluded from supporting his defenses and motion for summary
judgment. (Motion at pg. 6.) Moreover, Movant asserts that he has a due process
right to be advised of the claims against him and to be afforded an adequate
chance to prepare his defenses. (Motion at pg. 7, relying on Isbell v.
County of Sonoma (1978) 21 Cal.3d 61, 68.)
Under these circumstances, the Court finds that there is good cause in
advancing Movant’s discovery motions because they should be heard prior to
Movant’s motion for summary judgment. Otherwise, Movant would be precluded from
gathering necessary discovery to present a full defense to the claims asserted
against him, which would inhibit Movant’s due process rights. (See Isbell,
supra, 21 Cal.3d at 68.) Moreover, California’s discovery statutes are
intended to facilitate fairness. (Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court
(1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1294-1295.)
Accordingly, the Court grants Movant’s motion.
Conclusion
Movant’s motion for an
order advancing the hearing date on his motions to compel Plaintiffs’ discovery
responses is GRANTED.
Movant’s discovery related motions that are currently set for May 22, 2023 are
advanced to January 18, 2023. Moving papers for those motions shall be filed
and served according to the Code.
Moving party is ordered to
give notice.