Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCV12295, Date: 2023-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV12295    Hearing Date: March 6, 2023    Dept: 39

Sujey Tinoco v. Teresa Medical Center, Inc., et al.
Case No. 20STCV12295

Motions to Compel Further Responses

            Defendant Arjang Naim, M.D., Inc. (“Defendant”) moved to compel further responses from Plaintiff Sujey Tinoco (“Plaintiff”) to certain special interrogatories and requests for production.  After Defendant filed the motions, Plaintiff served supplemental responses.  Therefore, the motions are moot except with respect to sanctions.

            Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in the total amount of $8,294.04 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.  Plaintiff served timely responses on December 20, 2022.  The parties met-and-conferred between December 29, 2023, and January 3, 2023.  Plaintiff served supplemental responses on January 10, 2023, following which they met-and-conferred.  The motions were filed on February 2, 2023, following which Plaintiff served supplemental responses. 

            The Court is unclear why Plaintiff’s counsel could not resolve the disputes over the Requests for Production of Documents.  Putting aside whether objections were waived, the requests are not objectionable.  It is not unreasonable for Defendants to request the evidence, if any, upon which Plaintiff predicates her claims.  Moreover, Plaintiff’s responses are not code-compliant.  Plaintiff’s counsel states in relevant part: “After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff is unable to comply with this request because such documents are not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, but believes Defendant is in possession of such documents.”  Plaintiff is required to state: “whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, or has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) 

            However, the dispute over the special interrogatories appears to be reasonable, and it appears that Plaintiff was making a good-faith effort to address the interrogatories.  Plaintiff essentially stated that she did not have any information in response to the interrogatories.  To the extent the answer was not sufficient, the parties should have been able to resolve this issue without a motion.  The Court does not believe the meet-and-confer efforts were sufficient.  Based upon the foregoing, the Court grants the request for sanction in part, with respect to the motion to compel further responses to the Requests for Production of Documents. 

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1.                  Defendants’ motions are denied as moot.

2.                  Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, the Employee Justice League Group, jointly and severally, shall pay sanctions to Defendants, by and through counsel, in the amount of $2,881.65 based upon six hours of attorney time at a rate of $450 per hour plus one filing fee of $61.65.  These sanctions shall be paid within thirty (30) days.

3.                  Defendants’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.