Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV12541, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12541    Hearing Date: October 6, 2022    Dept: 39

Connie Hawthorne v. Shlomo Rechnitz, et al.

Case No. 22STCV12541

Motion to Compel Further Responses (Rockport) to RFA and RPD, Sets One

Plaintiff Connie Hawthorne (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Shlomo Rechnitz, RRT Enterprises L.P. (“RRT”), and Rockport Administrative Services (“Rockport”) asserting causes of action for elder abuse and negligence.  On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed Doe amendments adding West Hollywood Healthcare & Wellness Center, L.P. (“WHHWC”) and West Hollywood Wellness G.P., LLC (“WHW”) as defendants.  The Court granted a motion for trial preference, and trial is set for January 24, 2023, at 9:30 a.m.

Now, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Rockport to Requests for Admission, Set One, Number 1 through Number 7, as Rockport served further responses to the remaining RFAs.  Plaintiff also moves to compel further responses from Rockport to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.  The Court rules as follows:

RFA #1 through RFA #7 – GRANTED.  Rockport argues that it does not need to respond to these RFAs because they relate to RRT Enterprises, L.P., which has been dismissed from the case.  There are two problems with this argument.  First, this is not a basis to decline to address the RFAs.  Second, Defendant did not object on that basis and waived the objection.  Therefore, the motion is granted.

RPD #1 – GRANTED.

RPD #2 – GRANTED.  To the extent Defendant has withheld any documents based on the attorney-client privilege, Defendant must provide a privilege log.  To be sufficient, a privilege log must “identif[y] each document for which a privilege is claimed, with its author, date of preparation, all recipients, and the specific privilege claimed.”  (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 291, fn. 6.) 

RPD #3 – GRANTED.  The Court orders Defendant to respond based upon the date range clearly intended, which is January 1, 2020, to March 23, 2021.

RPD #4 – GRANTED.

RPD #5 – GRANTED.

RPD #6 – GRANTED.

RPD #7 through RPD #29 and RPD #38 to RPD #58 – DENIED.  Rockport has provided a code-compliant response.  If Plaintiff can demonstrate that Rockport knowingly and intentionally provided a false discovery response, Plaintiff’s counsel may file a motion for monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions.

RPD #31 through RPD #33 – GRANTED. 

RPD #30 and RPD #34 through RPD #37 – DENIED.  Plaintiff seeks documents Rockport provided to other named defendants.  The request is overbroad.  Moreover, this is not relevant and implicates privilege issues.  Plaintiff is free to seek the underlying documents without regard to whether Rockport produced them to co-defendants or vice versa. 

Sanctions – The Court denies both parties’ requests for sanctions.

Conclusion and Order – Rockport shall provide further responses, without objection (unless Rockport is providing a privilege log) within fifteen (15) days.  Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.