Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00124, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00124    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 3-15-23

Case #22CHCV00124

Trial Date: 11-6-23 c/f 6- 26-23

FURTHER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES & DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Peter Yaya, pro per

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, SC Medical, Inc. dba AFC Urgent Care of Valencia

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (set one)

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one)

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On December 21, 2021, Plaintiff Peter Yaya entered the premises of Defendant SC Medical, Inc. dba AFC Urgent Care of Valencia for medical treatment. Plaintiff maintains that a deviated septum interferes with his breathing, and therefore elects to avoid wearing a mask. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s objections to wearing a mask, Plaintiff was told a mask was required for any treatment. Plaintiff declined and asked that his paperwork be returned.

Plaintiff alleges his medical condition constitutes a disability, and the denial of service violated the right of equal access to the facility. The denial of service led to delayed treatment.

On December 28, 2021, Plaintiff mailed a letter to “American Family Care Corporate headquarters in Birmingham, Alabama outlining the events, and asked for a resolution of the matter and that appropriate action be taken. Plaintiff received a response… [threatening] Plaintiff ‘with an aggressive cross-complaint’ and ‘action for malicious prosecution.’”

On February 24, 2022, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a complaint for Violation of Civil Liberties (first and second causes of action), Patients Bill of Rights Violations, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Defendant answered on April 1, 2022.

On November 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for Violations of Civil Liberties (first and second causes of action), Violation of the Patient Bill of Rights, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. 

RULING: Denied.

Plaintiff, Peter Yaya, pro per, moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (set one) and Request for Production of Documents (set one) from defendant, SC Medical, Inc. dba AFC Urgent Care of Valencia. Plaintiff contends the objections lack merit. Defendant in opposition first challenges the timing of the motion, and defends the objections.

The exhibits to the motion show the responses to special interrogatories and request for production of documents served on July 6, 2022 [Declaration of Peter Yaya, Ex. B & D.] The motion was filed on October 3, 2022—73 days later. Motions to compel further responses to interrogatories and document requests must be filed within 45 days of receipt of service of responses, plus an additional five (5) days for mailing, if applicable. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1013, subd. (a), 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c).) The motion lacks any agreement for an extension, and defendant denies any such agreement as well. The court therefore denies the motion on grounds of untimeliness.

Even if the court considered the merits of the motion, the court notes that Defendant only provided a third party privacy objection to Special Interrogatory, number 1. The relevance objection on the basis that the subject clinic only opening during the declared Covid public health alert period, only seems to apply to document request numbers 14-15. The motion itself lacks specific address of these arguments, however. The court notes, however, that Defendant identified the relevant staff in response to interrogatory number 1. The court declines any further consideration, in that it cannot accord any further relief due to the procedural bar on the motion.

The motion is therefore denied in its entirety. Defendant makes no request for sanctions on the unsuccessful motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h.)

Plaintiff to give notice.