Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV25074, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV25074    Hearing Date: September 13, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to Compel Responses to Requests for Production (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One). 

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Compel Defense Medical Examination of Plaintiff.

The Court GRANTS in part Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions.

Background 

This case arises out of an alleged vehicle accident on July 8, 2018, near the intersection of La Cienega Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills, California.  On July 2, 2020, Plaintiffs Sion Goel and Shokouh Adamous (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendants Camille D. Muepo, Zacharie Muepo, and Christina Muepo (“Defendants”), and Does 1 through 100, inclusive asserting causes of action for general negligence and motor vehicle negligence. 

On January 7, 2022, Defendants filed their answer to the complaint.  That same day, Defendants also served Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One) on Plaintiff.  (Grandy Decls., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.)  After multiple extensions of time were requested and agreed to, Plaintiff’s responses were due on January 9, 2023.  (Id., ¶¶ 3-6.)  Despite these multiple extensions, Plaintiff never served responses to the interrogatories.  (Id., ¶ 7.)

On August 12, 2022, Defendants also noticed a medical examination of Plaintiff for January 13, 2023.  (Grandy Exam Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.).  Plaintiff did not serve any response or objection and did not appear for his examination.  (Id., ¶¶ 3-7.)

On January 13, 2023, Defendants filed the following two motions as to Plaintiff: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One); and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production (Set One).  On March 14, 2023, Defendants filed a third motion as to Plaintiff, a Motion to Compel Defense Medical Examination.  Defendants also seek sanctions in each motion.  These three motions are all set for hearing on September 13, 2023.

The Court is also aware that there were other motions on calendar in this matter for September 12, 2023.

Plaintiff did not file any opposition to any of the three motions on calendar for September 13.

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).)

“[T]he 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 a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.”  (Id., 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, supra, at p. 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).)

“[T]he 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 a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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.”  (Id., subd. (c).)

In an action seeking recovery for personal injuries, a defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff without leave of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subds. (a) & (b).) If a plaintiff fails to comply, the defendant may move for an order compelling plaintiff to appear at and submit to a physical examination. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.240, subd. (b).)

“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 a motion to compel response and compliance with a demand for a physical examination, 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.”  (Id., subd. (c).)

Within 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., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Discussion

Defendants served form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production on Plaintiff.  (Grandy Decls., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.)  Even after multiple extensions, Plaintiff never responded.  (Id., ¶¶ 3-7.) 

Defendants need show no more.  Their motions to compel responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production are GRANTED.

Defendants served notice of a medical examination of Plaintiff.  (Grandy Exam Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.).  Plaintiff did not serve any response or objection and did not appear for examination.  (Id., ¶¶ 3-7.)

Defendants need show no more.  Their motion to compel Plaintiff to attend and submit to a physical examination is GRANTED.

Defendants’ requests for sanctions are also granted in part.  With regard to the motions to compel initial responses to interrogatories and requests for production, given the relatively straightforward nature of these motions, as well as the economies of scale associated with preparing parallel motions, the Court awards sanctions on each motion in the amount of $412.50, calculated as 1.5 hours of attorney time multiplied by the hourly rate of $235 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee.  (See Grandy Decls., ¶ 10.)  For the motion to compel the physical examination of Plaintiff, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,012.50, calculated as 1.5 hours of attorney time multiplied by the hourly rate of $235 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee and the $600 cancellation fee charged by the office of Dr. Weinstein.  (See Grandy Exam Decl., ¶ 11.)

Conclusion 

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to Compel Responses to Requests for Production (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One).  Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve verified written responses to Defendants’ Request for Production, Form Interrogatories-General, and Special Interrogatories, without objection, within 30 days of notice of this order.   

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Compel Defense Medical Examination of Plaintiff.  Plaintiff is ORDERED to comply with the demand for medical examination attached as Exhibit E to the moving papers and appear for, and submit to, a physical examination by Michael Weinstein, M.D., at 360 San Miguel, Suite 701, Newport Beach, California at 8:30 am on October 4, 2023.

The Court GRANTS in part Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff and counsel of record The Goel Firm, P.C., are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay Defendants monetary sanctions in the total amount (for all three motions combined) of $1,837.50 within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party to give notice.