Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV06517, Date: 2025-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06517    Hearing Date: April 11, 2025    Dept: 50

There are two tentatives:                                                                                                                                                      



 Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

The motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication brought by Defendants Southern California Permanente Medical Group and Erique Earle Emel, M.D. (jointly, “Defendants”) is continued as set forth below.  

The parties have interposed 142 evidentiary objections, 127 of which have been interposed by Defendants. Due to the voluminous number of objections, the hearing on the motion will be continued to a date that will be set at the Hearing on Objections discussed below. 

The Court orders the parties to meet and confer by telephone or in person in a serious and good faith effort to resolve and eliminate the objections. The only objections that should remain are those that pertain to material evidence regarding material issues. Keeping the rules of evidence in mind, the parties should be able to reduce the objections to just a few. If any material objections remain unresolved, the parties are to set them forth in a joint statement with the text, the objection, and the argument of each side in favor of their respective positions regarding the remaining material objections, along with a space for a ruling. 

The joint statement must be filed on or before _______ with a courtesy copy delivered to Department 50. The Court will review any remaining objections with the parties at a hearing on _______________ at 2:00 p.m. (the “Hearing on Objections”). The date for the hearing on the motion will be set at the Hearing on Objections. 

If necessary, based upon the resolutions reached during the meet and confer process and/or at the Hearing on Objections, the parties may respectively file and serve revised briefing and evidence. The revised evidence may eliminate objectionable material; however, no new evidence or new argument is to be submitted unless it is as a result of compromises reached during the meet and confer process. In the event that revised briefing and evidence is necessary, the Court will discuss with the parties a briefing schedule for the revised briefing at the Hearing on Objections.   

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED:  April 11, 2025                                ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

DEVIN ESTIME, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, 

et al.,

Defendants.   Case No.:  22STCV06517

  Hearing Date: April 11, 2025

  Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m.

  [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO (1) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO; (2) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO; (3) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE; AND (4) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET FOUR, 

AND REQUESTS FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Background 

Operative Complaint

Plaintiff Devin Estime (“Plaintiff”), by and through his guardian ad litem Arti Bhimani, filed this action against defendants Southern California Permanente Medical Group (“SCPM” or “Medical Group”) and Enrique Earle Emel, M.D. (“Dr. Emel”) (together “Defendants”) on February 22, 2022. Plaintiff filed his operative third amended complaint (“TAC”) on September 24, 2024, asserting claims for (1) negligence, (2) unfair business practices, and (3) fraudulent concealment.

/ / /

Timeline of Discovery Dispute

On January 31, 2025, Plaintiff filed two motions to compel further responses directed to four sets of discovery: his Special Interrogatories (Set Three), Requests for Production (Set Four), Requests for Admission (Set Two), and Form Interrogatories (Set Two).

The timeline of Plaintiff’s requests and Defendant’s responses is undisputed.

Plaintiff propounded the disputed discovery on August 4, 2024. (Ganesan Decls., ¶¶ 3 and Exhs. A-B.) On September 6, 2024, Defendant served all-objection responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and Requests for Production. (Ganesan Decls., ¶¶ 4 and Exhs. C-D.) Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories. (Ganesan Decl. iso FR/RFA, ¶ 4.) 

Counsel subsequently met and conferred regarding Defendant’s responses. (Ganesan Decls., ¶¶ 5-9.)

Defendant served amended responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission on December 5, 2024. (Id., ¶¶ 9-10 and Exhs. .)

The parties sat for an Informal Discovery Conference with the Court on December 9, 2024. The minute order from the conference stated as follows:

“Regarding the issue of the pay structure and whether it is the same as the documents Plaintiff provided to Defendants from prior litigation and related issues regarding bonuses, etc. Defendant will consider whether to provide the pay structure without dollar amounts. As to bonuses and promotion information, the Doctor involved did not receive a bonus at the time at issue. Defendant will consider producing any documents that demonstrate that keeping costs down affects promotions. . . . If Defendants do not agree to provide further discovery responses, Plaintiff has 45 days from December 20, 2024 to bring a motion to compel further.”

(12-09-2024 Minute Order, pp. 1-2.)

Plaintiff filed his motions timely on January 31, 2025.

On March 12, 2025, Defendant served a supplemental response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production. (Bradford Decl. iso Opp. to SR/RPD, ¶ 9 and Exh. G.) On March 25, 2025, Defendant served supplemental responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories and Requests for Admission. (Bradford Decl. iso Opp. to FR/RFA, ¶ 2 and Exh. A; Bradford Decl. iso Opp. to SR/RPD, ¶ 10 and Exh. H.) (The latter production did not occur until after the filing deadline for Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Reply iso FR/RFA, 2:13-3:7.))

On March 28, 2025, Defendant filed its oppositions to Plaintiff’s motions. On April 4, 2025, Plaintiff replied.

Legal Standard

A party who receives an insufficient responses to an interrogatory, request for admission, or request for production of documents may move the Court for an order compelling further responses to the subject discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(a) [interrogatories], 2031.310(a) [requests for production], 2033.290(a) [requests for admission].) The motion must be filed within forty-five days of the purportedly deficient response, or by a later date if agreed-to in writing. (Id., subds. (c).) The moving party must meet and confer with its opponent prior to filing. (Id., subds. (b).)

Procedural Matters

Plaintiff’s motions are timely pursuant to the Court’s Order of December 9, 2024. (As to the Form Interrogatories, Plaintiff had no filing deadline in the first place, as it is undisputed that Defendant served no initial responses.)

As a separate matter: Plaintiff filed his motions in improper “omnibus” fashion, combining four discovery motions into two. The logic of the combination is clear: Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 depends entirely on the Requests for Admission, and Request for Production No. 65 depends entirely on the Special Interrogatories. Nonetheless, filing fees are owed for each motion. The Court will set an OSC for this purpose. Plaintiff’s payment of filing fees has no effect on Defendant’s obligations under this order.

Requests for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of several filings in an unrelated medical malpractice claim against Defendant filed in 2010. The Court denies the requests. The Court may not take notice of the contents of such court records. ((Garcia v. Sterling (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 17, 22.) And the fact of the documents’ filings is irrelevant.

Discussion

Substance of Requests

The substance of Plaintiff’s motions is largely moot. Defendant served supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s discovery on March 28, 2025. Plaintiff “is satisfied with the further responses provided by [Defendant]” (Reply iso SR/RPD, 2:5-6), with one exception: Defendant still refuses to supplement its response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set Four, No. 65.

Request for Production No. 65 demands production of “All DOCUMENTS that EVIDENCE, REFER or RELATE to YOUR responses to SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE propounded to YOU by PLAINTIFF.”

Defendant objected based on vagueness, ambiguity, and overbreadth.

The Court sustains the objections. The Discovery Act requires that each demand for production “[d]esignate the documents, tangible things, land or other property, or electronically stored information to be inspected, copied, tested, or sampled either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030(c)(1).) A request for all documents that “evidence, refer, or relate” to an entire set of interrogatories is not reasonably particular.

As to Request No. 65, Defendant’s objections are sustained, and the motion is denied.

Sanctions

Sanctions remain at issue. 

Where a party unsuccessfully makes opposes a motion to compel further responses, the moving party is entitled to monetary sanctions unless the responding party demonstrates its failure to respond was substantially justified or circumstances would otherwise make imposition of a sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(c) [interrogatories], 2031.310(h) [requests for production], 2033.290(c) [requests for admission].) A party does not free itself of sanctions by serving supplemental responses prior to the hearing date or declining to oppose, or withdrawing, a motion to compel. ((Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three and Requests for Admissions, Set Two were simple, straightforward, and sought information within the permissible scope of discovery. Defendant argues the Special Interrogatories are frivolous because Plaintiff’s theory of relief is meritless. 

But Defendant cannot refuse to respond to discovery simply because it denies the merits of Plaintiff’s underlying claims. Defendant’s refusal to respond to discovery deprived Plaintiff of the opportunity to submit timely relevant, discoverable evidence in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment or adjudication.

As the Court has already noted during discovery conferences, disclosure of information regarding Defendant’s payment arrangements with the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan was reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding Plaintiff’s claims for unfair business practices. Defendant’s failure to respond to proper discovery improperly infringed on Plaintiff’s ability to file the timely opposition of his choice. Defendant does not otherwise show substantial justification for responding only with boilerplate objections and taking many months to cure its deficient responses – only to serve responses several days after the deadline for Plaintiff to oppose Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Sanctions are warranted for such conduct.

Plaintiff’s counsel charges a market-reasonable $695 hourly. (Ganesan Decl., ¶ 16.) She estimates reasonable hours spent on each motion: five or six, respectively, to draft each, two to reply, and one to attend each hearing. (Ibid.) The Court reduces the award by 0.5 hours for each motion because the motions are heard concurrently. Also, because the motion regarding Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 65 was denied, the Court grants only half the sanctions associated with that motion. (Defendant seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel for the failed motion in its opposition; the Court denies the Request. Plaintiff’s motion was substantially justified; although the Request is vaguely drafted, the underlying subject of the Special Interrogatories was discoverable.)

When imposing a monetary discovery sanction, the Court may impose the sanction against “one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both”. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(a).) Joint sanctions against Defendant and its counsel are warranted here. The boilerplate nature of Defendant’s objections, the long delay in response, and the dubious timeline of Defendant’s supplemental responses – several days after the filing deadline for Plaintiff’s opposition to summary judgment – all suggest that counsel advised his client’s discovery misconduct.

The Court grant sanctions of $5,907.50 and $2,606.25, for a total award of $8,513.75, jointly and severally against Defendant and its counsel of record.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to his Special Interrogatories (Set Three), Requests for Admission (Set Two), and Form Interrogatories (Set Two) are granted as to sanctions only. The Court imposes sanctions of $8,513.75 jointly and severally against Defendant and its counsel of record, payable to Plaintiff and/or his counsel within fifteen days.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to his Requests for Production (Set Four) is denied, as are both parties’ requests for sanctions.

The Court sets an OSC Re: Payment of Filing Fees for April 30, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.. Plaintiff is ordered to pay $120.00 in filing fees to the clerk of court and file proof of such with the Court at least five days prior to the OSC.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  April 11, 2025

___________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court