Party Discovery: ODEH -V- FERNANDEZ Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                SAN B   RNARDINO SUP     RIOR COURT
                                                                               St t
        COUNTY OP SAN     BERNARDINO                                                      R CGL RT O CALIFORNIA
        247 West Third Street                                                    C if l 1 Y OfSA V tRVARLDlt O
    2   San Bernardino California 92415 0210                                        SAN ERNAR I O DISTRlCT

    3                                                                                  JUL 2 3 2020

    4                                                                      r y           s

                                                                                                         Dep aty
    5

    6

    7


                           SUP   RIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    9                                   COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

10

11      ALI ODEH                                               CASE NO           CIVDS18237 72
                           Plaintiff
    2                                                          RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL
                vs                                             FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM
13                                                             INT RROGATORIES G ENERAL
        LYNGLADEN FERNANDEZ DDS                                SET ONE
14      et al
                                                               Date July 23 2020
15                         Defendants                          Time 10 00 A M
                                                               Department S32
16

17

18


    9
                After full consideration of the written and oral submissions by the
20      parties the Court rules as follows

2       Discussion

22
                Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve further
23      supplemental responses to Form Interrogatories General Set One FIGSO
24      nos 2 8 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 7 11 1                   11 2 12 4 12 6 14 1 and 14 2

25      Defendant          also requests       sanctions of   3 230 00

26              However for the reasons set forth below the Court will gra r t the
27      Motion       but             the              to
                            reduce         sanction        1 140 00   or six     6   hours   at    L90 00 per

28      hour




        Page 1    of   5
     Analysis

 2          Defendant is correct Plaintiff s Opposition was untimely
 3           On that ground alone the Court could exercise its discretio n and

 4   disregard the Opposition         Cal Rules   of   Court   rule   3 1300 d   Rancho

 5   Mirage Country Club Homeowners Association v Hazelbaker 2016 2
 6   Ca1 App 5th 252 261 262 no abuse of discretion in rejecting late filed
 7   papers where defendants made no attempt to seek leave to file th eir

     opposition late and made no attempt to demonstrate good cause for having
 9
     failed to adhere to the applicable deadline and being in propria p ersona does
10   not   establish good cause
                                     but see Van Audenhove v Perry 2017 11
11
     Ca1 App 5th 915 918 fn 1 trial court can exercise discretion in considering
 2   untimely opposition

13           The Opposition makes no effort to address the merits of the Motion or
14
     of the subject discovery The Court may treat such a failure as a v aiver
15    Nazir v United Airlines Inc          2009 178 Cal App 4th 243 288 but see In re
16   Isayah C          2004 118 Ca1 App 4th 684 694 fn 10 court has discretion to
17
     address issues on merit even where party failed to address issue in
     opposition


 9           However on the merits the Court will grant the Motion for the
20   reasons set forth below

21            1         FIGSO no 2 8 in FIGSO no 2 8 Defendant asks whether

22
     Plaintiff has ever been convicted of a felony but Plaintiff refused i o respond
23   objecting on the grounds of irrelevance
24
            However this Court already ordered Plaintiff to provide an objection
25   free response

26            2         FIGSO no 6 2 Defendant asks Plaintiff to identify each injury
27
     Plaintiff attributes to the incident including the area of the body affected
28   but Plaintiff inerely      responds   Still under medical treatment I ana still



     Page 2   of   5