Judge Virginia Keeny, Case Number: 20STCV14792, Date: 2025-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 20STCV14792, Date: 2025-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV14792 Hearing Date: March 19, 2025 Dept: 45

Hasmik nazarian vs southern California Neurology consultants, et al.

1. Motion to compel further discovery responses to form interrogatories – general set one and employment law set one; request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $7,080.67 (CRS 4780)

2. Motion to compel further discovery responses to request for production of documents, set one; request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,680.67 (CRS 6833)

3. Motion to compel further discovery responses to request for production of documents, set one; request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,398.41 (5758)

Date of Hearing: March 19, 2025 Trial Date: April 7, 2025

Department: 45 Case No.: 20STCV14792

Moving Party: Plaintiff Hasmik Nazarian (#1-2)

Defendant Southern California Neurology Consultants (#3)

Responding Party: Defendant Southern California Neurology Consultants (#1-2)

Plaintiff Hasmik Nazarian (#3)

BACKGROUND

This is an employment dispute involving FEHA claims, breach of contract, and other tort claims. Plaintiff Hasmik Nazarian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on April 16, 2020 against defendants Southern California Neurology Consultants; Southern California Neurology Medical Group, Inc.; Sage Neurohospitalist Management Group, Inc.; Arbi Ohanian; Yafa Minazad; and Emma Canales (collectively “Defendants”), alleging 16 causes of action.

The Complaint alleges the following: Plaintiff is a 63-year-old woman, born in Iran, fluent in Farsi and Armenian, and who also speaks English. (Compl., ¶ 1.) Defendants hired Plaintiff as a medical biller on October 30, 2014. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Plaintiff worked for Defendants for almost three years until her wrongful termination on August 24, 2018 after she suffered a workplace injury and was disabled and filed for workers compensation benefits. (Id.) Defendants promised Plaintiff that they would not treat her arbitrarily, that she would have lifetime employment, and that Defendants would provide her with a fair progressive discipline process should any issue with her performance occur. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Defendants believed Plaintiff was too old and infirm, too ethnic, and that she should retire. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Defendants began to overwork Plaintiff, causing her to suffer physical illness, and to write Plaintiff up for supposed mistakes, which had not occurred before. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.) Plaintiff contested a written write-up on April 16, 2018, reiterating that her performance over the prior three months had resulted in recovery of about $200,000 for the practice and that she felt unjustly targeted and harassed. (Id. at ¶ 9.)

Plaintiff’s physical illness became so severe that she had to go to the emergency room and needed to take off work until April 23, 2018. (Id.) When Plaintiff returned, Defendants refused to accept her doctor’s note, refused to provide Plaintiff with a referral to workers compensation medical care, and did not conduct an interactive evaluation. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-13.) On May 3, 2018, Plaintiff was harassed and retaliated against upon returning to work, including Defendants referring to her disability in a derogatory manner. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Defendants took away job duties, did not accommodate Plaintiff, and made it clear that they were looking for any reason to fire her in retaliation for her having a disability, workplace injury/illness, and for filing a workers compensation claim. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Plaintiff was intentionally locked out of her office on August 13, 2018 and terminated on August 16, 2018. (Id. at ¶ 22.)

On January 28, 2025, Defendant Southern California Neurology Consultants (“SCNC”) filed its Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to its Request for Production of Documents, Set One. On February 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed her opposition to Defendant SCNC’s motion. There is no reply on file from Defendant SCNC.

On February 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Compel Defendants’ Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One. On the same day, Plaintiff also filed her Motion to Compel Defendants’ Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, and Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set One. On March 6, 2025, Defendants filed its opposition to Plaintiff’s motions. On March 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed her reply in support of her motions.

Now, the Court addresses the three motions to compel further, starting with Plaintiff’s motions.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff Hasmik Nazarian’s (1) Motion to Compel Defendants’ Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (CRS 6833) and (2) Motion to Compel Defendants’ Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, and Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set One (CRS 4780) are DENIED.

Defendant Southern California Neurology Consultants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to its Request for Production of Documents, Set One (CRS 5785) is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide further verified responses and all responsive documents within 30 days. Sanctions are denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where responses to requests for production of documents have been served but the requesting party believes that they are deficient because the statement of compliance is incomplete, the representation of an inability to comply is inadequate, evasive, or incomplete, or, because an objection is without merit, that party may move for an order compelling a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) The motion must be made within 45 days after service of verified responses in question, or any verified supplemental responses. (Id. § 2031.310, subd. (c).) The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration in compliance with CCP § 2016.040. (Id. § 2031.310, subd. (b).)

Where responses to interrogatories have been served but the requesting party believes that they are deficient because the answers are evasive or incomplete, or, because an objection is without merit, that party may move for an order compelling a further response. (Id. § 2030.300, subd. (a).) The motion must be made within 45 days after service of verified responses in question, or any verified supplemental responses. (Id. § 2030.300, subd. (c).) The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration in compliance with CCP § 2016.040. (Id. § 2030.300, subd. (b).)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Further (CRS 4780 and 6833)

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendants to provide further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One; Form Interrogatories – General, Set One; and Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set One.

There are two apparent problems with Plaintiff’s motions.

First, multiple motions should not be combined in a single filing. “Every direction of a court or judge, made or entered in writing, and not included in a judgment, is denominated an order. An application for an order is a motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1003.) Government Code section 70617 requires payment of a $60 filing fee for each motion filed with the Court.

Here, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants’ Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, and Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set One (CRS 4780) is improper because it combines two separate motions to compel further: (1) Form Interrogatories, General, Set One; and (2) Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set One. Plaintiff may not circumvent the Government Code with an omnibus filing. An additional filing fee is required before the Court may hear the motion.

Second, the Court lacks jurisdiction to even consider Plaintiff’s motions. The time limit for a motion to compel further responses is 45 days from the date the verified responses are served. (Code Civ. Proc., §§¿2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (c).) Courts lack jurisdiction to consider untimely motions to compel further responses other than to deny them. (Sexton v. Superior Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

The Court notes that the relevant code sections state that the time limit for bringing a motion to compel further responses runs from the service of verified responses. While there is no specific statute addressing the deadline to move to compel further responses when the responses contain only objections, as is the case here, the Court of Appeals came close to addressing such issue in Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127. In that case, the court dealt with the issue of unverified “hybrid” responses (i.e., some responses consisting of only objections and some responses consisting of substantive responses). The court held that even though the motion itself concerned only the objections, the responses were nonetheless required to be verified, and the clock did not begin running until verifications were served. The court stated, “[w]e can leave for another day the possibility of an ‘absurd result,’ as the trial court put it if there is no time limit on a motion to compel involving objections.” (Id. at 136.)

Here, Plaintiff received the responses to her discovery requests on October 3, 2022. (Rand-Lewis Decl., ¶9.) Plaintiff then filed her motions to compel further on February 21, 2025, well past 45 days from the date Defendants served their responses. Further, it is undisputed that Defendants’ responses consisted solely of objections. (Rand-Lewis Decl., ¶21; Keshishian Decl., ¶12.) As such, Defendants’ responses did not need to be verified by Defendants, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.250, subd. (a) and 2031.250, subd. (a). Whether a discovery set that contains only objections is subject to the 45-day limit for motions to compel further is an issue yet to be addressed, however this Court also finds that no time limit on a motion to compel involving only objections would be an “absurd result.”

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that service of the objections on October 3, 2022, triggered the 45-day deadline for Plaintiff to move to compel further responses, and Plaintiff’s motions are therefore untimely. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider these motions and summarily denies them. As such, the Court denies Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions. The Court also denies Defendants’ request for sanctions as the Court finds Plaintiff was substantially justified in bringing her motions.

Defendant SCNC’s Motion to Compel Further (CRS 5785)

Defendant SCNC moves to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to Request for Production, Set One, numbers 1 through 117.

As a preliminary matter, the Cout finds that Defendant SCNC has satisfied the procedural requirements for bringing a motion to compel further responses. First, the motion is timely, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subd. (c). Defendant SCNC received the responses to its discovery requests on December 20, 2024. (Keshishian Decl., ¶8.) Defendant SCNC then filed its motion to compel further on January 28, 2025, within the 45-day deadline for bringing a motion to compel further responses. Second, the separate statement requirement is satisfied, pursuant to Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3). On January 28, 2025, Defendant SCNC filed its separate statement in support of its motion. Lastly, Defendant SCNC sufficiently complied with the meet and confer requirement, pursuant to Code of Civil procedure sections 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) and 2016.040. (Keshishian Decl., ¶¶ 9-10, Ex. E.)

Turning to motion itself, the Court finds Defendant’s request for productions seeks documents directly related to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and many of the requests are tailored to the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint as the requests took various statements verbatim from Plaintiff’s Complaint. In response to the 117 requests, Plaintiff provided the same objection:

Objection: Compound, vague, ambiguous, improper, overly broad, does not request a specific and limited type or category of writings, the inclusion of definitions violates Code of Civil Procedure §2031. The requests are duplicative, compound, burdensome, harassing and unintelligible. Requires evidence which Defendant already possesses or which is equally available. In addition to calling for attorney work product, invades the attorney client privilege and calls for premature expert discovery. Invades privacy rights.

(Defendant’s Separate Statement.) The Court overrules Plaintiff’s general boilerplate objections to providing further written responses and responsive documents to all of the document requests, except for the following: Requests Nos. 1, 5-21, 47, 48, 50, 81-97, and 117. These enumerated requests are either overbroad, duplicative, or incomprehensible. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further verified responses and all responsive documents to the remaining requests within 30 days.

With respect to sanctions, Defendant SCNC seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $3,398.41 (7 hours at $475/hr., plus $73.41 filing fee) for its motion to compel further responses to the Request for Production, Set One. (Keshishian Decl., ¶16.) The Court denies sanctions on the grounds that many of plaintiff’s objections were justified.

CONCLUSION