John L. Dubois through his Successor in Interest Tami L. Early vs. Colusa Medical Center, LLC

34-2023-00332501-CU-PO-GDS: John L. Dubois through his Successor in Interest Tami L. Early vs. Colusa Medical Center, LLC 02/06/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Production in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

34-2023-00332501-CU-PO-GDS: John L. Dubois through his Successor in Interest Tami L. Early vs. Colusa Medical Center, LLC 02/06/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Production in Department 53

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs John Dubois, et al.’s motion to compel Defendants Colusa Medical Center, LLC, et al.’s responses to requests for production (set ten) is granted.

By way of the instant motion Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendants’ responses to their request for production (set ten). According to Plaintiffs, Defendants’ responses were due on August 26, 2024.

Defendants filed an “opposition” which concedes that they have not served the responses and that they intend to do so by February 28, 2025. They contend that due to their counsel’s excusable neglect the discovery was “lost in the shuffle of moving office locations and being in a lengthy trial.” Defendants ask that the motion be denied because they “will provide said responses.”

Defendants’ assertion that they “will provide” responses is no basis to deny the motion. There is no dispute that Defendants did not and have not served timely responses. Where, as here, responses are not timely served, “[t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (CCP § 2031.300(a).) Thus, Defendants have waived all objections.

To the extent that Defendants’ opposition requests relief from waiver, that request is denied. Relief from any waiver may only be granted “on motion”, not based on an opposition. (CCP § 2031.300(a) [emphasis added].) A leading treatise also provides, “A noticed motion for relief from waiver is required. (I.e., such relief cannot be granted ex parte, or where the only motion pending is a motion to compel.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024) ¶ 8:1033, emphasis in original.) Defendants have not filed a motion for relief from waiver. Thus, Defendants’ request for relief from waiver is denied without prejudice to filing a noticed motion.

No later than February 20, 2025, Defendants shall serve verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiffs’ request for production (set ten).

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332501-CU-PO-GDS: John L. Dubois through his Successor in Interest Tami L. Early vs. Colusa Medical Center, LLC 02/06/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Production in Department 53

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied as the motion was unopposed on the merits. Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 purports to authorize sanctions if the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing sanctions under the C.R.C. must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. (Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr, Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.) However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.)

Plaintiffs also indicate that sanctions are still appropriate under CCP § 2023.010(d), which sets forth an example of a misuse of the discovery process. CCP § 2023.010 does not authorize sanctions on its own. While not cited by Plaintiffs, CCP § 2023.030(a) states that the Court “may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” The Court simply notes that CCP § 2023.030(a) states that the Court 'may' impose sanctions for a misuse of the discovery process “to the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title”, but that the more specific statute governing the instant motion, CCP § 2031.300 only permits sanctions if the motion was made or opposed without substantial justification.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.