Defendants Kathy Massoumi, D.D.S. and Kathy Massoumi, D.D.S., Inc. (collectively, ?defendants?) seek an order from the Court compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to Special Interrogatories, Sets Three and Four, which were propounded upon Plaintiff on 03/26/18 and 06/11/18, respectively, via mail.? (Orozco Decls., Ex. A.)
Under Code of Civil Procedure ?2030.290, a party who fails to respond to interrogatories in a timely fashion waives all objections to the discovery, and the propounding party is entitled to move to compel responses.??Id.at subd.(a) & (b).? Moreover, monetary sanctions are to be imposed against the party failing to respond.??Id.?at subd.(c).? Here, Defendants have shown that they served the special interrogatories on Plaintiff?s counsel via mail on the dates mentioned above.? Defendants? counsel further avers that no responses have been received, despite counsel?s attempts to follow up.? (Orozco Decl. 1, ?8; Orozco Decl. 2, ?6.)? Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants? motion, and ORDERS Plaintiff to serve verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Sets Three and Four, without objections, within 20 days of notice.
Further, the Court imposes monetary sanctions of $332 per motion, or a total of $664, payable by Plaintiff to Defendants within 20 days.
Defendants also ask the Court to compel Plaintiff to execute a medical records release authorization.? Specifically, Defendants argue that Plaintiff stated in deposition testimony that her dental insurance provider was United Concordia, and that they have subpoenaed United Concordia for its records regarding Plaintiff.? Defendants have not provided a copy of the subpoena served on United Concordia, and neither have they attached any correspondence with the subpoenaed company.? Plaintiff has filed no opposition, but Defendants? moving papers indicate that she has refused to sign a medical records release authorization as to United Concordia.
Defendants? request has no explicit basis in the Civil Discovery Act.? While Defendants have cited several cases, one of which would seem to allow the Court discretion to compel Plaintiff to execute personal records release authorizations, none of these cases discusses the actual basis for the Court?s potential authority to do so and are inapposite or distinguishable.
That is not to say that Defendants are without remedy.??See?e.g.,?Code Civ. Proc. ?1985.3.? The motion is DENIED without prejudice to Defendants re-filing after setting forth the basis upon which the Court could grant the request or Defendants seeking compliance through another procedural vehicle.
Defendants to give notice.