Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 23STCV03072, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

On February 10, 2023, Plaintiff Mehrnaz Hadian filed this medical malpractice action against Defendant Irene Chen, M.D. and others.

On January 30, 2025, Defendant filed a motion for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff and a motion to compel discovery responses. Plaintiff did not file any oppositions.

A court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) Misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond to discovery, unjustifiably making unmeritorious objections to discovery, and disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.) “The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’ [Citation.] Generally, ‘[a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390 (Los Defensores).)

Defendant seeks terminating sanctions because Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s September 17, 2024 order to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests. (Motion at pp. 4, 6.) Defendant has had to file several other motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses. (Id. at pp. 4-5.)

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order does not yet demonstrate a history of abuse that justifies “the ultimate sanction.” (See Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390.) Additionally, trial is not until October 27, 2025. There is still time for Plaintiff’s delayed compliance with discovery orders or Defendant’s pursuit of alternative sanctions.

Under the totality of the circumstances, Defendant has not shown a history of willful discovery abuse by Plaintiff, and the Court cannot find that less severe sanctions (such as evidentiary or issue sanctions) would be ineffective and that terminating sanctions are warranted.

The motion is DENIED without prejudice. The Court encourages Defendant to renew the motion to be heard at the time at the Final Status Conference, or to be heard earlier if there continues to be noncompliance.

On March 18, 2024, Defendant propounded Demand for Documents and Things, Set Two on Plaintiff. (Valoff Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff never served responses. (Valoff Decl. ¶ 6.)

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290 [interrogatories], 2031.300 [documents]; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff filed no opposition to this motion and did not serve timely responses. It does not appear that Plaintiff served substantially compliant responses prior to the hearing.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses, without objections, to Demand for Documents and Things, Set Two within 30 days.

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