Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22STCV13792, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13792    Hearing Date: February 14, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            BACKGROUND

On February 27, 2019, plaintiff Rosevianney C. Ogumsi (“Plaintiff”) filed this medical malpractice action. 

On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against defendants Richard Dale Gentile, D.D.S., and Heydar Hamid Shahrokh, D.D.S., an individual, and Heydar Shahrokh, D.D.S., Inc., dba Comfort Dental Center (erroneously sued as Comfort Dental Center) (Heydar Hamid Shahrokh, D.D.S and Heydar Shahrokh, D.D.S., Inc., collectively, the “Shahrokh Defendants”), asserting causes of action for (1) professional negligence (dental malpractice), (2) intentional in infliction of emotional distress, (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (4) unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq), and (5) defamation.  

On October 10, 2022, the Shahrokh Defendants each filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to their respective Request for Identification and Production of Documents and Things, Set One.  Each Defendant also seeks an order imposing monetary sanctions of $2,335, against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, Chima Anyanwu, Esq.  

The motions are unopposed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; 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).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)) 

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

III.        DISCUSSION

On July 6, 2022, Defendants served the subject requests for production of documents by email on Plaintiff. After multiple communications sent to Plaintiff’s counsel, on September 6, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel requested additional time to serve responses. The parties stipulated to a response date of September 27, 2022, and thereafter October 6, 2022. Plaintiff has not served responses or opposed the motions.

Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED. Plaintiff is to provide responses within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Each Defendant requests an award of sanctions in the amount of $2,335 in connection with their respective motion. This is based on an hourly rate of $350 per hour for a total of 6.5 hours plus a $60 filing fee, per motion, for a combined total of $4,670 for both.  The motions and replies were substantially identical, however, and not dissimilar from all the previous discovery motions filed by the Shakrokh Defendants in this case, the motions are unopposed, and  counsel will be appearing once on both motions, so 12.5 hours of time overstates the amount of time experienced counsel reasonably should expend on this matter.  Defendants’ requests for sanctions will be granted but in the reduced aggregate amount of $820 ($350 per hour for 2 hours plus $120 in filing fees).

IV.         CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motions are GRANTED. Plaintiff is to provide responses within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Defendants’ requests for sanctions are GRANTED. Plaintiff and counsel of record are to pay sanctions in the amount of $820 ($410 per motion).

Moving parties to give notice. 

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at alhdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court 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.