Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 23AHCV00002, Date: 2024-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV00002, Date: 2024-01-29 Tentative Ruling

On October 16, 2023, plaintiff Socorro Cabral (“Plaintiff”), individually and as successor-in-interest to Tovias Espino, filed four discovery motions. One motion sought an order compelling defendant Boardwalk West Financial Services, LLC (“Boardwalk West”) to serve further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 15.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, and 16.5.

Plaintiff granted Boardwalk West several extensions to respond and Boardwalk West served unverified responses July 20, 2023. Plaintiff argues that the responses were evasive and deficient and sent a letter to Boardwalk West’s counsel on August 1, 2023. Boardwalk West agreed to supplement some responses, but not those at issue in this motion.

In opposition, Boardwalk West argues that this motion is moot because it served supplemental responses on January 16, 2024. Boardwalk West argues that its objections were justified and sanctions should not be imposed. Specifically, Boardwalk West claims that the form interrogatories in question sought “premature information related to special or affirmative defenses” and “premature disclosure of expert information.” Boardwalk West claims that it did not have adequate time to issue subpoenas, obtain and analyze medical records, complete discovery, or conduct depositions. This is unpersuasive because the action was filed more than a year ago. Also, the form interrogatories sought facts supporting affirmative defenses and Defendant’s contentions; if Defendant did not have any facts, Defendant should have withdrawn those affirmative defenses, as it later did.

The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).) Sanctions may be awarded under in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (C.R.C. 3.1348.)

Accordingly, while the motion is DENIED as moot, the Court imposes sanctions pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1348 on Boardwalk West and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $700, consisting of 2 hours at a hourly rate of $350, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this Order.

On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed three motions for orders compelling Alhambra Healthcare & Wellness Centre (“Alhambra Healthcare”) to serve further discovery responses and produce responsive documents. Alhambra Healthcare and Boardwalk West are represented by the same counsel, so the same facts described above are applicable to the motions brought against Alhambra Healthcare.

First, Plaintiff sought further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 15.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, and 16.5 from Alhambra Healthcare who, like Boardwalk West, argued that the interrogatories were premature but served supplemental responses on January 16, 2024. As discussed above, these arguments are unpersuasive.

Next, Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory No. 2 sought the names and contact information of its current employees who provided care to the decedent, Tovias Espinoza. Alhambra Healthcare objected on the grounds that Plaintiff’s counsel could not directly contact Alhambra Healthcare’s employees. In response, Plaintiff drafted a stipulation for defense counsel to execute, whereby defense counsel would agree to accept service of deposition notices and subpoenas on behalf of its current employees. This stipulation was provided to defense counsel on August 1, 2023, and on August 23, 2023, defense counsel wrote that Alhambra Healthcare intended to execute the stipulation. However, the stipulation was not signed and there were no further discussions between the parties until after this motion was filed. The stipulation was signed by defense counsel several months after it was originally sent, on January 16, 2024; it appears that Plaintiff was forced to file this motion in order to obtain Alhambra Healthcare’s cooperation.

Third, Plaintiff demanded Alhambra Healthcare produce its administrative and resident care policies and procedures as part of Request for Production Nos. 10, 11, and 12. Alhambra Healthcare agreed to produce the table of contents for them and purportedly sent a proposed “protective order.” Plaintiff responded with the above-mentioned stipulation agreeing: (1) not to disseminate the policies and procedures to third parties not necessary to the litigation, (2) not to use them in any other matter, and (3) to store and destroy them upon conclusion of the lawsuit. Plaintiff also requested that defense counsel sign the stipulation and produce the documents by August 10, 2023. Alhambra Healthcare counsel sent an email dated August 23, 2023, expressing an intention to sign the stipulation, but failed to do so, necessitating this motion.

In light of the foregoing facts, the Court imposes monetary sanctions pursuant to CRC 3.1348 against Alhambra Healthcare and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $2,100, for 6 hours at an hourly rate of $350, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this Order.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

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.