Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 19STCV11835, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 
IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 
ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 19STCV11835    Hearing Date: January 19, 2024    Dept: 29

Motions to Compel Plaintiff Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories (Set 1) and Supplemental Request for Production (Set 1) filed by Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.

Tentative

The motions to compel are GRANTED.

The requests for sanctions are GRANTED in part.

Background

This case arises from a fall that allegedly occurred at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center on April 12, 2017.  Plaintiff Samuel Aurebach (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on April 5, 2019, asserting a cause of action for premises liability against Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“CSMC”) and Does 1 through 50.  CSMC filed its Answer to the Complaint on May 10, 2019.

Plaintiff amended his complaint on June 23, 2021, to name Defendant ABM Building Solutions LLC as Doe 1 and Defendant ABM Global Facility Service as Doe 2.  At the request of Plaintiff, those two entities were dismissed on April 27, 2022. 

Also on April 27, 2022, Plaintiff amended his complaint to name Defendant ABM Industries Groups, LLC as Doe 3.  On June 10, 2022, Defendant ABM Industry Groups, LLC (“ABM”) filed its Answer to the Complaint.

On May 12, 2023, CSMC served Plaintiff with discovery, including Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One) and Supplemental Requests for Production (Set One).  (Radochonski Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. 1.)  Plaintiff did not respond to this discovery.  (Id., ¶ 5.)

On October 24, 2023, CSMC filed the two discovery motions that are set for hearing on January 19: motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to the supplemental interrogatories and the supplemental requests for production.  CSMC requests sanctions in each motion.

Plaintiff filed a combined opposition to the motions on January 5.  CSMC filed a combined reply on January 11.

Trial is scheduled for July 23, 2024.

Legal Standard

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).)  In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

When a party moves to compel initial responses to interrogatories, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes [the motion], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

A party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).)  In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

When a party moves to compel initial responses to requests for production, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes [the motion], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  Where a party or attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.020, subd. (a).)

“[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].”  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 407.)  Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses … the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.”  (Id. at pp. 408-409.)  This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.”  (Id. at p. 408.)  If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.”  (Id. at p. 409.) “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)  

Discussion

CSMC served Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One) and Supplemental Requests for Production (Set One) on Plaintiff on May 12, 2023.  (Radochonski Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. 1.)  Plaintiff has not responded to the discovery.  (Id., ¶ 5.)  Indeed, in his opposition, Plaintiff concedes that he has not responded, stating that he “always intended to comply with all discovery” and that responses “will be served before the hearing.”  (Opp. at p. 2.)

CSMC has made a sufficient showing for orders compelling Plaintiff to respond to the discovery.  The motion is GRANTED.

CSMC’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in part.  Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s statement of his intention and his promises to comply, it appears that it was necessary for CSMC to file this motion to obtain responses to its discovery.  Plaintiff has not acted with substantial justification, and it would not be unjust to impose monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act.  Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to compel initial responses, and the economies of scale associated with filing multiple discovery motions, the Court sets sanctions on each motion in the amount of $510, calculated based on 2 hours of attorney work, multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $225.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 filing fee.  (Radochonski Decls., ¶ 6.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS CSMC’s motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code-compliant, verified, written responses, without objection, to CSMC’s Supplemental interrogatories (Set One) within 21 days of notice of this ruling.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code-compliant, verified, written responses, without objection, to CSMC’s Supplemental Requests for Production (Set One) within 21 days of notice of this ruling.

The Court GRANTS in part CSMC’s request for sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff and counsel of record the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani, P.C., jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to CSMC under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $1,020 ($510 per motion, multiplied by two motions) within 21 days of notice of this ruling.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.