Case Number: EC059821??? Hearing Date: November 18, 2016??? Dept: A
Reyes v Glendale Memorial Hospital
MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES (2)
Calendar: 6
Case No: EC059821
Date: 11/18/16
MP: Defendant, Moustafa Moustafa (DOE Defendant 2)
RP: Plaintiff, Maria Reyes
RELIEF REQUESTED:
1. Order compelling further responses to special interrogatories, set two; order imposing monetary sanctions of $960.
2. Order compelling further response to requests for production, set two; order imposing monetary sanctions of $960.
CHRONOLOGY:
Discovery Served: July 22, 2016
Responses Served: August 26, 2016 (Timely)
Motions filed: October 14, 2016 (Timely)
DISCUSSION:
This case arises from the claims of the Plaintiff, Maria Reyes, that after she suffered injuries in a trip and fall, she suffered additional injuries because the Defendants provided negligent medical care and treatment for the Plaintiff?s injuries. Trial is set for January 3, 2017.
This hearing concerns the motions of the Defendant, Moustafa Moustafa, to obtain further responses to his special interrogatories and to his requests for production. Under CCP section 2030.300 and 2031.310, the Court may order a party to serve further responses to interrogatories and requests for production when the responses are incomplete or evasive or when the responses contain unmerited objections.
1. Special Interrogatories
The Defendant seeks further responses to special interrogatories 39 to 46, 49, and 50. The Plaintiff?s response to each included the following objections: overly broad, vague, compound, complex, calls for lengthy narrative, work product, calls for expert opinion, calls for preparation of compilation, oppressive, harassing, burdensome, attorney-client privilege, objected that these interrogatories are compound.
Under California law, the objecting party has the burden of justifying its objections when the propounding party requests that the Court order further responses. Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221. This requires the Plaintiff to proceed through each of her objections and demonstrate that the objections have merit. Under CCP section 2023.010, it is a misuse of discovery to make unmerited objections.
The Plaintiff did not file any opposition papers to justify her objections. Since the Plaintiff did not meet her burden, her responses contain unmerited objections.
Accordingly, the Court will grant the Defendant?s motion and order the Plaintiff to serve further responses without objections to the Defendant?s special interrogatories.
The Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions. Under CCP section 2030.300, the Court may impose monetary sanctions on the Plaintiff for the attorney?s fees and costs that the Defendant has incurred to seek the further responses.
The Defendant?s attorney, Michael de Coster, states that the attorney expects to spend a total of 5 hours billed at $180 per hour on the motion and that the filing fee is $60. The amount requested of $960 is a reasonable amount of monetary sanctions to impose on the Plaintiff.
2. Requests for Production
The Defendant seeks further responses to requests for production 42 to 48. The Defendant?s attorney, Michael de Coster, states in his declaration that these requests seek documents supporting the Plaintiff?s contentions of negligence, the Plaintiff?s claims for past and future medical expenses, and the Plaintiff?s claim for lost earnings.
The Plaintiff?s response to each included the following objections: overly broad, vague, compound, complex, calls for lengthy narrative, work product, calls for expert opinion, calls for preparation of compilation, oppressive, harassing, burdensome, and attorney-client privilege.
Under California law, the objecting party has the burden of justifying its objections when the propounding party requests that the Court order further responses. Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221. This requires the Plaintiff to proceed through each of her objections and demonstrate that the objections have merit. Under CCP section 2023.010, it is a misuse of discovery to make unmerited objections.
The Plaintiff did not file any opposition papers to justify her objections. Since the Plaintiff did not meet her burden, her responses contain unmerited objections.
Accordingly, the Court will grant the Defendant?s motion and order the Plaintiff to serve further responses without objections to the Defendant?s requests for production.
The Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions. Under CCP section 2031.310, the Court may impose monetary sanctions on the Plaintiff for the attorney?s fees and costs that the Defendant has incurred to seek the further responses.
The Defendant?s attorney, Michael de Coster, states that the attorney expects to spend a total of 5 hours billed at $180 per hour on the motion and that the filing fee is $60. The amount requested of $960 is a reasonable amount of monetary sanctions to impose on the Plaintiff.
RULING:
1. Grant Defendant?s motion for order compelling further response to special interrogatories 39 to 46, 49, and 50.
: impose monetary sanctions on Defendant in the sum of $960.00.
2. Grant Defendant?s motion for order compelling further response to requests for production 42 to 48.
impose monetary sanctions on Defendant in the sum of $960.00.