Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 20STCV36767, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

On September 27, 2021, Plaintiff Djamileh Mahjobi filed this medical malpractice action against Defendant David E. Fermelia MD.

According to Plaintiff, “As a matter of calendaring, this motion was original[ly] scheduled for December 28, 2023. Thereafter it was continued by court to February 13 2024. There was no notice that the motion will be heard or continued to March 19 2024.” (Reply at p. 1.) Not so. Plaintiff’s motion originally noticed a March 19, 2024 hearing date. On December 21, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories – Set Two to February 13, 2024. This motion, however, has always been scheduled for March 19, 2024.

Plaintiff’s single motion seeks to compel production pursuant to two discovery requests: Request for Admissions – Set One and Special Interrogatories – Set Two.

Each category of discovery should have been filed as a separate motion, with separate filing fees and hearing reservations. Despite being scheduled as only one motion and one hearing, the total substance is that of two motions. This unfairly allows Plaintiff to take only one hearing reservation each (instead of two), resulting in an inaccurate projection and accounting of the Court’s workload and inconvenience for both the court and other litigants. Plaintiff is ordered not to do this again and is warned that continued action of this type may result in monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5.

Because Plaintiff’s Request to Waive Court Fees was granted, the Court will not order Plaintiff’s payment of additional filing fees.

For any future discovery motions, the parties must file a separate motion for each discovery request, or the Court may strike or deny the motions for being improperly filed.

Plaintiff was previously informed of this in the Court’s February 13, 2024 order, but this motion was filed before that admonition.

Under the Court’s First Amended General Order for electronic filing, “[e]lectronic documents must be electronically filed in PDF, text searchable format when technologically feasible without impairment of the document’s image.” (General Order No. 2019-GEN-014-00, at ¶ 6(a).) The table of contents and all attachments, including exhibits, must be bookmarked. (General Order No. 2019-GEN-014-00, at ¶¶ 6(b)-(d); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f)(4).) Plaintiff’s filings do not comply with these requirements.

Additionally, for a motion to compel further, the moving party must meet and confer with the opposing party and file a Separate Statement or follow the Court’s alternative method of outlining the disputes. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).) This Department requires the parties to follow the procedures outlined in Exhibit A of Department 48’s Courtroom Information (available on the Court’s website, www.lacourt.org) and file a joint statement. Plaintiff did not comply with these requirements.

If any party continues to electronically file noncompliant documents, the Court may strike the filings or impose monetary sanctions. Plaintiff was previously informed of this in the Court’s February 13, 2024 order, but this motion was filed before that admonition.

In any event, despite the irregularities described above, the court will decide this motion on the merits. But the parties are warned that future failures to comply with the Court’s procedures may result in motions being denied and/or monetary or other sanctions.

A party may move to compel a further response to interrogatories if the demanding party deems an answer to be evasive or incomplete, if an exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or inadequate, or if objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

For Special Rog Nos. 1, 3, 8-11, 15, Defendant provided boilerplate objections before responding. Defendant’s objections are overruled. The remaining responses are complete and compliant. The motion is DENIED.

Special Rog No. 2 asks Defendant to “describe with specificity that action that each [individual named for Special Rog No. 1] took during the Surgery.” Defendant provided boilerplate objections before responding that the two doctors “both assisted with the surgery.” Defendant’s objections are overruled. The motion is GRANTED, and Defendant must provide supplemental responses within 30 days.

Special Rog No. 4 asks Defendant to state all supporting facts for his contention that the medical care and surgery was within the standard of care. Special Rog Nos. 5 and 6 ask Defendant to identify every person with knowledge of those facts and every supporting document. Special Rog Nos. 12-13 ask Defendants to state every fact forming the basis for his denials of the causes of action. Special Rog No. 16 asks for the reason for removing each parathyroid, and Special Rog No. 17 asks what Defendant did with them after removal. Special Rog No. 18 asks Defendant to state, without a third-party expert witness, why Plaintiff was hospitalized for several days after surgery. Defendant provided only boilerplate objections. Defendant’s objections are overruled. The motion is GRANTED, and Defendant must provide supplemental responses within 30 days.

Special Rog No. 7 requests the date and location of every parathyroidectomy that Defendant performed on anyone within the past 20 years. Defendant’s objections based on overbreadth and burden are sustained, and other objections are overruled. The motion as to this interrogatory is DENIED.

Special Rog No. 14 asks Defendant to “state with specificity the duration of Surgery. Hours and minutes, from the time patient was taken to Operative room to when patient was transferred to Recovery area.” Defendant explains that the request “asks for the surgical duration, and then requests time from [when] patient was taken into operating room to when the patient was transported to an unknown recovery area, which encompasses more than the initial question regarding the duration of the surgery. On this basis, responding party cannot answer as it is unclear what is being asked.” Defendant’s objections for vagueness and ambiguity are sustained. The motion is DENIED as to this interrogatory without prejudice to the drafting of a more precise interrogatory in a future discovery request.

This motion is duplicative of Plaintiff’s motion filed on November 30, 2023. (See Motion, Ex. C.) The Court already ruled on Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions – Set One on February 13, 2024. The motion is DENIED in this respect.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court