Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 23AHCV02804, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV02804, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

On December 4, 2023, plaintiff Samson Mulugeta (“Plaintiff”) filed this medical malpractice action against The Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation (“Oncology Institute”) and Amitabha Mazumder (“Mazumder”). On October 1, 2024, Oncology Institute and Mazumder (collectively, “Defendants”) filed these six motions for orders compelling Plaintiff to serve further responses to written discovery. On October 24, 2024, the Court advanced the hearings on Defendants’ motions and ordered the parties to file joint separate statements.

On November 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed six joint separate statements and Defendants filed their reply briefs noting Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motions. The next day, on November 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed two belated consolidated opposition briefs and objected to Defendants’ arguments within their reply briefs.

As an initial matter, the Court addresses Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants’ motions are moot because further responses have already been served on October 31, 2024. (Opp., p. 2.) The Court rejects the contention that Plaintiff may “unilaterally divest the court of authority to rule on the motion by serving a further response” while a motion to compel further is pending. (County of San Benito v. Superior Court (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 243, 256.) This approach “would permit a party faced with a motion to compel to delay its adjudication indefinitely by successive supplemental but inadequate responses, each prompting a further motion to compel, each of which in turn would be defeated by piecemeal supplementation.” (Ibid.)

While Plaintiff does not include copies of these further responses, and there appears to be some dispute as to whether these further responses have even been served, the Court notes that the joint statements appear to include Plaintiff’s further responses within them. The Court therefore proceeds to rule on Defendants’ maintained requests for further responses as outlined in the separate statements. Additionally, since Oncology Institute and Mazumder’s discovery requests are identical, the Court addresses them jointly.

The motions are GRANTED in part and further responses are required in response to RFP Nos. 2-3, 8, 10-12, 16-17, 20-22, 24-30, 34-35. If Plaintiff intends to comply with a request for production, Plaintiff must provide a Code-compliant response stating that the production will be in whole or in part and that documents in his possession, custody, or control will be produced. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) If Plaintiff cannot comply with the request for production, Plaintiff must provide a Code-compliant response stating that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made and provide the reason for his inability to comply. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) The Court sustains Plaintiff’s objections based on the taxpayer privilege and the attorney-client privilege/attorney-work product doctrine, on the condition that Plaintiff provide a privilege log. All other objections are overruled.

Based on Plaintiff’s representation that he waives all claims for past medical expenses, the motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 4-7, 9, 19, and 31.

The motions are DENIED as to SROG Nos. 10-14, and 27 based on Plaintiff’s representation that he is waiving his claims for past medical expenses.

The motion is DENIED as to SROG Nos. 16 as the Court SUSTAINS the objection that the interrogatories call for the premature disclosure of expert witness opinion.

The motion is GRANTED as to SROG Nos. 17, 21, 22. The Court overrules the objections to SROG No. 17 as no expert witness opinion is being sought. The objections to SROG Nos. 21 and 22 are also overruled.

Form Interrogatories (Set One), Nos. 2.6(b), 6.5, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 10.1, 10.2, 13.1, and 13.2

Plaintiff agrees to supplement his responses to FROG Nos. 2.6, 6.5; therefore, the motion is GRANTED as to these interrogatories.

The motions are GRANTED as to FROG Nos. 10.1 and 10.2. If Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that “his cancer worsened” as a result of Defendants, Plaintiff clearly has medical conditions and injuries that preexisted Defendants’ alleged wrongful conduct. Therefore, Plaintiff must either substantiate or disavow the allegations in his Complaint in response to FROG Nos. 10.1 or 10.2.

The Court awards sanctions in connection with Defendants’ motions to compel further responses to their Requests for Production and Form Interrogatories, even if Plaintiff eventually served further responses while these motions were pending. (CRC 3.1348.) The Court does not award sanctions in connection with Defendant’s motions to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) because Plaintiff’s objection to Special Interrogatory No. 16 was justified.

However, since each defendant’s motions were substantively identical, the Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $2,490, consisting of 10 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $225, plus $240 in filing fees.

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.