Judge Stephen Morgan, Case 21AVCV00534 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

This is a medical malpractice claim. Plaintiffs Vincent Dino (“Vincent”[1]) and Debbie Dino (“Debbie” and collectively “Plaintiffs”) allege that on or around June 30, 2020, Dino was admitted to Defendant Lancaster Hospital Corporation dba Palmdale Regional Medical Center (“Defendant”) for what he perceived as a cardiac issue presenting as chest pressure and dizziness. Plaintiffs further allege that: (1) at the time of Vincent’s admission and following, Defendant provided inadequate staffing levels; (2) in the process of discharge, Vincent was discharged against hospital protocol, policies, procedures, and the standard of care, and was left standing unaided and unassisted outside of Defendant’s hospital building; (3) while alone outside, Vincent fell; and (4) Debbie arrived to Defendant’s hospital building and found Vincent injured, incapacitated, and lying on the sidewalk.

On June 30, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint alleging two causes of action for (1) Medical Negligence, and (2) Loss of Consortium.

On August 15, 2022, informal discovery conference (“IDC”) was held. Counsel for Plaintiffs, Steven Carmine Gambardella (“Gambardella”) presented to the Court that he will submit further code-compliant responses. The Court continued the IDC to September 14, 2022.

On September 28, 2022, an IDC held. Defendant was represented by Nicholas D. Smith (“Smith”). There were no appearances on behalf of Plaintiffs. Smith represented that discovery responses had not yet been received. The Court advised that Motion a Motion to Compel Further Responses may be filed.

On January 25, 2023, Defendant filed five motions: (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses of Plaintiff Vincent Dino to Requests for Production, Set One; (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses of Debbie Dino to Requests for Production, Set One; (3) Motion to Compel Responses and Further Responses of Plaintiff Vincent Dino to Special Interrogatories, Set One; (4) Motion to Compel Further Responses of Plaintiff Vincent Dino’s Form Interrogatories, Set One; and (5) Motion to Compel Further Responses of Plaintiff Debbie Dino to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

On February 14, 2023, Defendant filed Notices of Non-Oppositions for each respective motion.

Standard for Compelling Further Responses to Requests for Production (“RFPs”) – “Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)¿For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court¿(2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)¿¿¿¿

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“RFP”) may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.¿ (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §¿2031.310(a).)¿¿¿¿

Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).)¿¿¿

A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §¿2031.310(b)(1).) In¿Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court¿(2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good cause” as a showing that there¿is¿“a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.”¿¿¿¿¿

If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v.¿Sup. Ct¿(2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)¿¿¿¿

“The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Cal. Code of Civ.¿Proc. § 2017.020(a).) Generally, objections on the ground of burden require the objecting party to produce evidence of (a) the propounding party’s subjective intent to create burden, or (b) the amount of time and effort it would take to actually respond. (See¿West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County¿(1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) However, where discovery is obviously overbroad on its face, no such evidence is necessary. (See¿Obregon v. Superior Court¿(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)¿¿¿¿¿

Trial courts are vested with “wide discretion” to allow or prohibit discovery. (Williams v. Superior Court¿(2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)¿¿¿

Standard for Compelling Further Responses to Interrogatories – Under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, a court may order a party to serve a further response to interrogatories when the court finds that any of the following apply:

Meet and Confer Requirement¿– Before filing a motion to compel further, the moving party is required to meet and confer with the party to engage in a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(b), 2033.290(b), 2016.040.) The Court notes that this requirement has been attempted by counsels. Each declaration by Nicholas D. Smith (“Smith”)¿presents a timeline starting from November 03, 2021, including letters, emails, and voicemails. (See Decl. Smith to each motion.) The Court notes that it attempted to hold an IDC, but Plaintiffs did not appear, prompting the Court to allow a motion to compel to be filed.

The Court notes that PRMC has filed not one, but five motions to compel further. The Court addresses these motions together as Plaintiffs did not appear at the IDC.

Application – The Court first addresses timing. Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).)¿¿Here, the verified responses were received on January 10, 2022.

Defendant presents that the instant motion is timely as “Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to extend Defendant’s statutory 45-day deadline to file motions to compel further responses to discovery to 45-days after Plaintiff’s further responses are served.” (Motion to Compel Further Responses of Plaintiff Vincent Dino to Requests for Production, Set One 4:20-24; Motion to Compel Further Responses of Debbie Dino to Requests for Production, Set One 4:20-24; Motion to Compel Responses and Further Responses of Plaintiff Vincent Dino to Special Interrogatories, Set One 4:20-24; Motion to Compel Further Responses of Plaintiff Vincent Dino’s Form Interrogatories, Set One 4:24-28 and 5:1; Motion to Compel Further Responses of Plaintiff Debbie Dino to Form Interrogatories, Set One 4:20-24.)

Dear Mr. Smith: Received are your letters of February 2, 2022, 7 and 5 pages in length respectively, which I have reviewed. I concur with some of the points made, however, request an extension to respond with supplemental answers to and including, February 25, with a concomitant extension of time 45 days after Plaintiffs’ Supplement responses are served. Deal? Thank you in advance for your professional courtesy. Ms. Lynn, please make a note once confirmation of an extension is received for the calendar.

Good afternoon Mr. Gambardella. Thank you for your response. Does the 45-day extension of time to file any motions to compel apply to ALL responses, whether supplemented or not?

Nicholas, I mean 45 days from the due date for that response or the received date whichever provides the longer time period in which to work things out or move to compel. Any dates can be pushed out provided there is mutuality in doing so. Hope that clarifies the offer.

Thank you, Steven. The 45-day deadline is clear in terms of the due date vs. received date for supplemented responses. However, our understanding is that any responses your clients choose NOT to supplement are subject to the original 45-day deadline, or Feb. 28. We are asking if the deadline to compel ALL responses whether supplemented are [sic] not will be subject to the extended deadline of 45-days from the time responses are now due (Feb. 25) or received. This will give us more time to meet and confer re: same. Otherwise, we could potentially have one (1) business day to review responses and move to compel any non-supplemented responses should same [sic] be necessary.

Just for clarity, evidently, lets agree that the clock on a motion to compel supplemental responses will begin on the date the last supplemental responses are due, both for the initial rogs and the supplementals that Plaintiff has offered to proffer. Claro?

Defendant urges the Court to interpret the agreement as it has interpreted it – that is, a motion to compel could be brought 45-days after the supplemental responses are served, supplemental responses were never served, ergo these motions are timely.

The Court disagrees with this interpretation. Such an interpretation would not be appropriate as there is “no specific later date” identified by the agreement and would allow Defendant to file motions to compel at any time throughout the litigation.

Further, no the emails indicate that no specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing was determined between the parties. Perhaps the best possible interpretation is that the last offer which received a “Perfect. Thank you.” was sufficiently clear in that it only included the date the responses were due not received: “that the clock on a motion to compel supplemental responses will begin on the date the last supplemental responses are due, both for the initial rogs and the supplementals that

Accordingly, the deadline for a motion to compel further has passed and the motions are DENIED.

Defendant Lancaster Hospital Corporation dba Palmdale Regional Center’s Motion to Compel Further Responses of Plaintiff Vincent Dino to Requests for Production, Set One, is DENIED.

Defendant Palmdale Regional Center’s Motion to Compel Further Responses of Debbie Dino to Requests for Production, Set One, is DENIED.

Defendant Lancaster Hospital Corporation dba Palmdale Regional Center’s Motion to Compel Responses and Further Responses of Plaintiff Vincent Dino to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is DENIED.

Defendant Lancaster Hospital Corporation dba Palmdale Regional Center’s Motion to Compel Further Responses of Plaintiff Vincent Dino’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, is DENIED.

[1] Plaintiffs Vincent Dino and Debbie Dino share the same surname. The Court addresses each by their respective first names for the purpose of clarity. No disrespect is meant.