Judge Walter P. Schwarm, Case 30-2021-01214092 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2021-01214092, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Motion No. 1:

Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Set One, From Defendant Sun Mar Management Services dba Sun Mar Healthcare and Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc. (Motion), filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 33, is GRANTED.

The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Section 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230 and 2030.240. [¶] (2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. [¶] (b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”

On 9-17-21, Plaintiffs served Defendant (Sun Mar Management Services dba Sun Mar Healthcare and Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc.) with “Form Interrogatories—General, Set No. One (1).” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.) Defendants’ responses to this discovery request were due on 10-22-21. (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 3.) On 10-25-21, after the Defendant requested a 30-day extension to provide discovery responses (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit B), Plaintiffs agreed to an extension until 11-24-21 provided Defendant served “. . . objection-free substantive responses. . . .” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 6 and Exhibit B.) Plaintiffs did not receive any responses from Defendants before filing this Motion. (Prabakar Decl., ¶¶ 7, 8, 9, and 10.)

Defendant did not provide responses on behalf of Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc. because Defendant contends that the correct entity is Sun Mar Management Services dba Sun Mar Healthcare. Specifically, the Opposition states that “Sun Mar Management Services does business as Sun Mar Healthcare. This is verified in Sun Mar Management Services response to Form Interrogatories, Numbers 3.1 and 3.6.” (Opposition; 2:16-17.) Plaintiffs’ Reply (Reply), filed on 6-7-22 under ROA No. 125, states, “. . . SUN MAR HEALTCARE, INC. cannot be allowed to rely on responses provided by co-defendant SUN MAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES in order to contend that Defendant responded to Plaintiffs’ disputed discovery.” (Reply; 3:24-26 (Uppercase in Reply.).) Plaintiff directed this discovery request to Sun Mar Management Services dba Sun Mar Healthcare and Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc. Meller & Snyder v. R & T Properties, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1311 (Meller), states, “The designation ‘doing business as’ simply indicated Mr. Tieger was operating under a fictitious business name. [Citations.] It merely described a person who was doing business under some other name. [Citation.] Doing business under a fictitious business name does not create a separate legal entity. [Citation.] Therefore Mr. Tieger, an individual, and only as such, was named as a defendant in the original complaint.” Since Plaintiff designated Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc. as a “dba” of Sun Mar Management Services, Sun Mar Management Services was the party responsible for providing responses to this discovery request. Discovery responses from Sun Mar Health Care, Inc. are not the subject of this Motion.

Although Defendant served verified responses to this discovery request, the responses contain objections. (Opposition; Exhibit A.) Under Code of Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), Defendant waived objections to this discovery request because Defendant did not timely serve these responses.

Defendant asks the court for relief from waiver of objections (Opposition; 3:15-4:15), but Defendant did not file a noticed motion for relief as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a).

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Set One, From Defendant Sun Mar Management Services dba Sun Mar Healthcare and Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc. filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 33. The court orders Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiffs’ “Form Interrogatories, Set One” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250, subd. (a)) within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of this order.

Plaintiffs are to give notice.

Motion No. 2:

Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Set One, From Defendant Sun Mar Management Services (Motion), filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 32, is GRANTED.

On 9-17-21, Plaintiffs served Defendant (Sun Mar Management Services) with “Form Interrogatories—General, Set No. One (1).” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.) Defendants’ responses to this discovery request were due on 10-22-21. (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 3.) On 10-25-21, after the Defendant requested a 30-day extension to provide discovery responses (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit B), Plaintiffs agreed to an extension until 11-24-21 provided Defendant served “. . . objection-free substantive responses. . . .” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 6 and Exhibit B.) Plaintiffs did not receive any responses from Defendants before filing this Motion. (Prabakar Decl., ¶¶ 7, 8, 9, and 10.)

On 2-7-22, Defendant served verified responses to this discovery Request (Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (Opposition) filed on 6-1-22 under ROA No. 91; Exhibit A.) Although Defendant served verified responses to this discovery request, the responses contain objections. (Opposition; Exhibit A.) Under Code of Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), Defendant waived objections to this discovery request because Defendant did not timely serve these responses.

Defendant asks the court for relief from waiver of objections (Opposition; 2:25-3:26), but has not filed a noticed motion for relief as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a).

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Set One, From Defendant Sun Mar Management Services filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 32. The court orders Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiffs’ “Form Interrogatories, Set One” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250, subd. (a)) within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of this order.

Plaintiffs are to give notice.

Motion No. 3:

Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Set One, From Defendant Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center (Motion), filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 31, is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 states, in part, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: [¶] (a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: [¶] (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Section 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230 and 2030.240. [¶] (2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. [¶] (b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”

On 9-17-21, Plaintiffs served Defendant (Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center) with “Form Interrogatories—General, Set No. One (1).” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.) Defendants’ responses to this discovery request were due on 10-22-21. (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 3.) On 10-25-21, after the Defendant requested a 30-day extension to provide discovery responses (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit B), Plaintiffs agreed to an extension until 11-24-21 provided Defendant served “. . . objection-free substantive responses. . . .” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 6 and Exhibit B.) Plaintiffs did not receive any responses from Defendants before filing this Motion. (Prabakar Decl., ¶¶ 7, 8, 9, and 10.)

On 2-7-22, Defendant served verified responses to this discovery Request (Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (Opposition) filed on 6-1-22 under ROA No. 85; Exhibit A.) Although Defendant served verified responses to this discovery request, the responses contain objections. (Opposition; Exhibit A.) Under Code of Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), Defendant waived objections to this discovery request because Defendant did not timely serve these responses.

Defendant asks the court for relief from waiver of objections (Opposition; 2:24-3:24), but has not filed a noticed motion for relief as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a).

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Set One, From Defendant Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 31. The court orders Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiffs’ “Form Interrogatories, Set One” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250, subd. (a)) within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of this order.

Plaintiffs are to give notice.

Motion No. 4:

Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories Set One, From Defendant Sun Mar Management Services dba Sun Mar Healthcare and Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc. (Motion), filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 40, is GRANTED.

On 9-17-21, Plaintiff served Defendant (Sun Mar Management Services dba Sun Mar Healthcare and Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc.) with “Special Interrogatories, Set One to Defendant Sun Mar Management Services dba Sun Mar Healthcare and Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc.” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.) Defendants’ responses to this discovery request were due on 10-22-21. (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 3.) On 10-25-21, after the Defendant requested a 30-day extension to provide discovery responses (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit B), Plaintiffs agreed to an extension until 11-24-21 provided Defendant served “. . . objection-free substantive responses. . . .” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 6 and Exhibit B.) Plaintiffs did not receive any responses from Defendants before filing this Motion. (Prabakar Decl., ¶¶ 7, 8, 9, and 10.)

Defendant did not provide responses on behalf of Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc. because Defendant contends that the correct entity is Sun Mar Management Services dba Sun Mar Healthcare. Specifically, the Opposition states that “Sun Mar Management Services does business as Sun Mar Healthcare. This is verified in Sun Mar Management Services response to Form Interrogatories, Numbers 3.1 and 3.6.” (Opposition; 2:17-18.) Plaintiffs’ Reply (Reply), filed on 6-7-22 under ROA No. 125, states, “. . . SUN MAR HEALTCARE, INC. cannot be allowed to rely on responses provided by co-defendant SUN MAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES in order to contend that Defendant responded to Plaintiffs’ disputed discovery.” (Reply; 3:24-26 (Uppercase in Reply.).) Plaintiff directed this discovery request to Sun Mar Management Services dba Sun Mar Healthcare and Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc. Meller & Snyder v. R & T Properties, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1311 (Meller), states, “The designation ‘doing business as’ simply indicated Mr. Tieger was operating under a fictitious business name. [Citations.] It merely described a person who was doing business under some other name. [Citation.] Doing business under a fictitious business name does not create a separate legal entity. [Citation.] Therefore Mr. Tieger, an individual, and only as such, was named as a defendant in the original complaint.” Since Plaintiff designated Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc. as a “dba” of Sun Mar Management Services, Sun Mar Management Services was the party responsible for providing responses to this discovery request. Discovery responses from Sun Mar Health Care, Inc. are not the subject of this Motion.

Defendant asks the court for relief from waiver of objections (Opposition; 3:16-4:17), but Defendant did not file a noticed motion for relief as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a).

The court orders Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiffs’ “Special Interrogatories, Set One to Defendant Sun Mar Management Services dba Sun Mar Healthcare and Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc.” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250, subd. (a)) within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of this order.

Plaintiffs are to give notice.

Motion No. 5:

Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories Set One, From Defendant Sun Mar Management Services (Motion), filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 39, is GRANTED.

On 9-17-21, Plaintiffs served Defendant (Sun Mar Management Services) with “Special Interrogatories, Set One to Defendant Sun Mar Management Services.” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.) Defendants’ responses to this discovery request were due on 10-22-21. (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 3.) On 10-25-21, after the Defendant requested a 30-day extension to provide discovery responses (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit B), Plaintiffs agreed to an extension until 11-24-21 provided Defendant served “. . . objection-free substantive responses. . . .” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 6 and Exhibit B.) Plaintiffs did not receive any responses from Defendants before filing this Motion. (Prabakar Decl., ¶¶ 7, 8, 9, and 10.)

On 2-7-22, Defendant served verified responses to this discovery Request (Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (Opposition) filed on 6-1-22 under ROA No. 93; Exhibit A.) Although Defendant served verified responses to this discovery request, the responses contain objections. (Opposition; Exhibit A.) Under Code of Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), Defendant waived objections to this discovery request because Defendant did not timely serve these responses.

Defendant asks the court for relief from waiver of objections (Opposition; 2:26-3:27), but has not filed a noticed motion for relief as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a).

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories Set One, From Defendant Sun Mar Management Services filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 39. The court orders Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiffs’ “Special Interrogatories, Set One to Defendant Sun Mar Management Services” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250, subd. (a)) within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of this order.

Plaintiffs are to give notice.

Motion No. 6:

Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories Set One, From Defendant Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center (Motion), filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 38, is GRANTED.

On 9-17-21, Plaintiffs served Defendant (Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center) with “Special Interrogatories, Set One to Defendant Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center.” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.) Defendants’ responses to this discovery request were due on 10-22-21. (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 3.) On 10-25-21, after the Defendant requested a 30-day extension to provide discovery responses (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit B), Plaintiffs agreed to an extension until 11-24-21 provided Defendant served “. . . objection-free substantive responses. . . .” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 6 and Exhibit B.) Plaintiffs did not receive any responses from Defendants before filing this Motion. (Prabakar Decl., ¶¶ 7, 8, 9, and 10.)

On 2-7-22, Defendant served verified responses to this discovery Request (Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (Opposition) filed on 6-1-22 under ROA No. 101; Exhibit A.) Although Defendant served verified responses to this discovery request, the responses contain objections. (Opposition; Exhibit A.) Under Code of Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), Defendant waived objections to this discovery request because Defendant did not timely serve these responses.

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories Set One, From Defendant Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 38. The court orders Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiffs’ “Special Interrogatories, Set One to Defendant Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250, subd. (a)) within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of this order.

Plaintiffs are to give notice.

Motion No. 7:

Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, From Defendant Sun Mar Management Services dba Sun Mar Healthcare and Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc. (Motion), filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 36, is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (b), provides, “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: [¶] (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: [¶] (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280. [¶] (2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. [¶] (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”

On 9-17-21, Plaintiff served Defendant (Sun Mar Management Services dba Sun Mar Healthcare and Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc.) with “Request for Production of Documents, Set One to Defendant Sun Mar Management Services dba Sun Mar Healthcare and Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc.” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.) Defendants’ responses to this discovery request were due on 10-22-21. (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 3.) On 10-25-21, after the Defendant requested a 30-day extension to provide discovery responses (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit B), Plaintiffs agreed to an extension until 11-24-21 provided Defendant served “. . . objection-free substantive responses. . . .” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 6 and Exhibit B.) Plaintiffs did not receive any responses from Defendants before filing this Motion. (Prabakar Decl., ¶¶ 7, 8, 9, and 10.)

Defendant did not provide responses on behalf of Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc. because Defendant contends that the correct entity is Sun Mar Management Services dba Sun Mar Healthcare. Specifically, the Opposition states that “Sun Mar Management Services does business as Sun Mar Healthcare. This is verified in Sun Mar Management Services response to Form Interrogatories, Numbers 3.1 and 3.6.” (Opposition; 2:17-18.) Plaintiffs’ Reply (Reply), filed on 6-7-22 under ROA No. 126, states, “. . . SUN MAR HEALTCARE, INC. cannot be allowed to rely on responses provided by co-defendant SUN MAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES in order to contend that Defendant responded to Plaintiffs’ disputed discovery.” (Reply; 3:24-26 (Uppercase in Reply.).) Plaintiff directed this discovery request to Sun Mar Management Services dba Sun Mar Healthcare and Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc. Meller & Snyder v. R & T Properties, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1311 (Meller), states, “The designation ‘doing business as’ simply indicated Mr. Tieger was operating under a fictitious business name. [Citations.] It merely described a person who was doing business under some other name. [Citation.] Doing business under a fictitious business name does not create a separate legal entity. [Citation.] Therefore Mr. Tieger, an individual, and only as such, was named as a defendant in the original complaint.” Since Plaintiff designated Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc. as a “dba” of Sun Mar Management Services, Sun Mar Management Services was the party responsible for providing responses to this discovery request. Discovery responses from Sun Mar Health Care, Inc. are not the subject of this Motion.

Although Defendant served verified responses to this discovery request, the responses contain objections. (Opposition; Exhibit A.) Under Code of Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a), Defendant waived objections to this discovery request because Defendant did not timely serve these responses.

Defendant asks the court for relief from waiver of objections (Opposition; 3:17-4:20), but Defendant did not file a noticed motion for relief as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a).

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, From Defendant Sun Mar Management Services dba Sun Mar Healthcare and Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc. (Motion), filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 36. The court orders Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiffs’ “Request for Production of Documents, Set One to Defendant Sun Mar Management Services dba Sun Mar Healthcare and Sun Mar Healthcare, Inc.” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250, subd. (a)) within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of this order.

Plaintiffs are to give notice.

Motion No. 8:

Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, From Defendant Sun Mar Management Services (Motion), filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 35, is GRANTED.

On 9-17-21, Plaintiff served Defendant (Sun Mar Management Services) with “Request for Production of Documents, Set One to Defendant Sun Mar Management Services.” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.) Defendants’ responses to this discovery request were due on 10-22-21. (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 3.) On 10-25-21, after the Defendant requested a 30-day extension to provide discovery responses (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit B), Plaintiffs agreed to an extension until 11-24-21 provided Defendant served “. . . objection-free substantive responses. . . .” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 6 and Exhibit B.) Plaintiffs did not receive any responses from Defendants before filing this Motion. (Prabakar Decl., ¶¶ 7, 8, 9, and 10.)

On 2-7-22, Defendant served verified responses to this discovery Request (Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (Opposition) filed on 6-1-22 under ROA No. 95; Exhibit A.) Although Defendant served verified responses to this discovery request, the responses contain objections. (Opposition; Exhibit A.) Under Code of Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a), Defendant waived objections to this discovery request because Defendant did not timely serve these responses.

Defendant asks the court for relief from waiver of objections (Opposition; 2:23-4:3), but has not filed a noticed motion for relief as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a).

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, From Defendant Sun Mar Management Services filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 35. The court orders Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiffs’ “Request for Production of Documents, Set One to Defendant Sun Mar Management Services” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250, subd. (a)) within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of this order.

Plaintiffs are to give notice.

Motion No. 9:

Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, From Defendant Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center (Motion), filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 34, is GRANTED.

On 9-17-21, Plaintiff served Defendant (Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center) with “Request for Production of Documents, Set One to Defendant Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center.” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.) Defendants’ responses to this discovery request were due on 10-22-21. (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 3.) On 10-25-21, after the Defendant requested a 30-day extension to provide discovery responses (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit B), Plaintiffs agreed to an extension until 11-24-21 provided Defendant served “. . . objection-free substantive responses. . . .” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 6 and Exhibit B.) Plaintiffs did not receive any responses from Defendants before filing this Motion. (Prabakar Decl., ¶¶ 7, 8, 9, and 10.)

On 2-7-22, Defendant served verified responses to this discovery Request (Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (Opposition) filed on 6-1-22 under ROA No. 97; Exhibit A.) Although Defendant served verified responses to this discovery request, the responses contain objections. (Opposition; Exhibit A.) Under Code of Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a), Defendant waived objections to this discovery request because Defendant did not timely serve these responses.

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, From Defendant Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 34. The court orders Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiffs’ “Request for Production of Documents, Set One to Defendant Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250, subd. (a)) within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of this order.

Plaintiffs are to give notice.

Motion No. 10:

Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, From Defendant Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center (Motion), filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 37, is GRANTED.

On 9-17-21, Plaintiff served Defendant (Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center) with “Request for Production of Documents, Set Two to Defendant Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center.” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.) Defendants’ responses to this discovery request were due on 10-22-21. (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 3.) On 10-25-21, after the Defendant requested a 30-day extension to provide discovery responses (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit B), Plaintiffs agreed to an extension until 11-24-21 provided Defendant served “. . . objection-free substantive responses. . . .” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 6 and Exhibit B.) Plaintiffs did not receive any responses from Defendants before filing this Motion. (Prabakar Decl., ¶¶ 7, 8, 9, and 10.)

On 2-7-22, Defendant served verified responses to this discovery Request (Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two (Opposition) filed on 6-1-22 under ROA No. 89; Exhibit A.) Although Defendant served verified responses to this discovery request, the responses contain objections. (Opposition; Exhibit A.) Under Code of Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a), Defendant waived objections to this discovery request because Defendant did not timely serve these responses.

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ (Pablo Lopez, by and through Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez and Christian Salinas Mendieta as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pablo Lopez) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, From Defendant Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center filed on 12-15-21 under ROA No. 37. The court orders Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiffs’ “Request for Production of Documents, Set Two to Defendant Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center” (Prabakar Decl., ¶ 2, and Exhibit A.); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250, subd. (a)) within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of this order.

Plaintiffs are to give notice.