Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV31676, Date: 2022-12-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31676    Hearing Date: December 29, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On August 26, 2021, Plaintiff Helen Grebow (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Gordon H. Sasaki (“Defendant”) for injuries arising from a medical procedure performed by Defendant. On October 1, 2021, Defendant propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One, on Plaintiff by electronic mail. (Corson Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A.)

After granting several extensions, Defendant filed three (3) motions to compel responses to these discovery requests on December 5, 2022.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

          Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, if a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a response. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. 

          “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for production or interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) 

III.      DISCUSSION

          Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) on October 1, 2021. (All Corson Decl. ¶ 4 Ex. A.) After granting several extensions, Plaintiff failed to respond. As of the date of filing these motions, Defendant had not received discovery responses from Plaintiff. (Corson Decl. ¶ 7.)

          In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Standing Order of this Court requires that the parties participate in an IDC before filing the motion. However, this Standing Order only applies to motions to compel further, not motions to compel initial responses. Because this is a motion to compel initial responses, the parties were not required to participate in an IDC, nor were they required to meet and confer. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)   

          Plaintiff also requests that the motion be continued to allow for her to find a qualified attorney to represent her. The Court notes that, upon filing her complaint, Plaintiff was represented by Arthur Grebow of Grebow & Rubin, LLP and there has been no motion filed by Plaintiff’s counsel seeking to be relieved as counsel in this matter, nor has any hearing date for such a motion.  While the Court appreciates that Mr. Grebow may not be specialized in medical malpractice actions, there has been ample time to find and substitute in such counsel, particularly with the presumably willing assistance of present counsel.  Plaintiff states that because she was undergoing cancer treatment at the beginning of the year, Plaintiff has been unable to respond, secure qualified substitute counsel, or obtain the essential documents necessary to respond. Because Plaintiff has had over a year between the time that the discovery responses were propounded and these motions were served, the Court declines Plaintiff’s request to continue the motion.

          Defendant requests $435.75 in sanctions for each motion, totaling $1,307.25. This amount is calculated at the hourly rate of $225.00 per hour, with one hour for each motion, one hour total to review any opposition and prepare a reply, and one hour to attend the hearings. Because these motions are essentially duplicative, the Court reduces the amount to three hours total, at a rate of $225.00 per hour, totaling $675.00.  

          Plaintiff submits declarations arguing that the imposition of sanctions in this case would be unjust. Plaintiff states that her ability to find a qualified attorney to represent her in this case was hampered because she was undergoing cancer treatment at the end of 2021 and the beginning of 2022. (Grebow Decl. ¶ 10-12.) However, Plaintiff does not show that she acted with substantial justification by not responding after her treatment program was complete. By her declaration, Plaintiff’s treatment was complete in the beginning of February. (Grebow Decl ¶ 11.) Plaintiff does not adequately explain or attempt to justify her failure to respond in the ten months after her treatment. Again, Plaintiff had over a year between the discovery requests were propounded and Defendant brought the motions to compel responses. For that reason, sanctions will be imposed, but in a reduced amount.

IV.      CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses to the requests within 30 days of issuance of this order.

          Plaintiff is ordered to pay $675.00 to Defendant within 20 days issuance of this order.

Moving party to give notice. 

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.