Rosa Aguilar v. Sevag Bastian, MD, et al.

(Alhambra Courthouse: Dept. V) August 26, 2026 DEPARTMENT V LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

County of Los Angeles - NORTHEAST District Department V ROSA AGUILAR, Plaintiff, vs. SEVAG BASTIAN, MD, et al., Defendants. | Case No.: |

| | | Hearing Date: | August 26, 2026 | | | Time: | 8:30 a.m. | | | [Tentative] Order RE: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE | MOVING PARTY: Defendant Sevag A. Bastian, M.D. RESPONDING PARTY: None The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion. No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND On December 16, 2025, Plaintiff Rosa Aguilar (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Sevag Bastian, M.D., Douglas Brown, M.D., and Radnet Managed Imaging Services, Inc, alleging a cause of action for negligence, arising out of Defendants' care and treatment of a lump/mass on Plaintiff's left elbow.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Dr. Bastian incorrectly diagnosed Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges the lump was excised resulting in the tumor being fragmented, as the excision was not performed in a manner to identify and confirm the mass/tumor margins, which resulted in the surgical bed being contaminated with what was subsequently diagnosed as a Malignant Spindle Cell tumor-Myxofibrosarcoma. In that surgery a tumor mass was excised, and the excised fragmented tumor mass was sent to pathology and reported a pathologic diagnosis of Malignant Spindle Cell Tumors and Myxofibrosarcoma. Plaintiff alleges that because the bed contaminated with malignant cancer cells during the surgery, she was at high risk for recurrence of the Sarcomas and malignancies.

On March 16, 2026, Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiff's complaint. On March 16, 2026, Plaintiff's counsel's motion to be relieved as counsel was granted. On June 4, 2026, Defendant filed these motions to compel Plaintiff's responses to special interrogatories, and form interrogatories, set one. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc section 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that needs be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

Sanctions Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2023.030, subd. (a).) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2023.010, subd. (d).) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court "finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust."¿ (Code Civ. Proc., sections 2030.290(c).)

DISCUSSION On March 16, 2026, Defendant served Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories on Plaintiff. (Sakadjian Decl., P. 3; Exhs. A.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to provide verified responses, despite Defendant's meet and confer efforts. (Id., P.P. 4-7; Exh. B.) The motion is accordingly granted.

Defendant seeks sanctions, in the amount of $1,870 for both motions, against Plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, 2023.010, and 2023.030. Failure to respond is a misuse of the discovery process, and Defendant is entitled to sanctions. The court reduces the requested amount of sanctions due to the simplicity and repetition of the motions, and the lack of opposition. Plaintiff is ordered to pay $500 in sanctions ($250 an hour for 2 hours, plus $120 filing fees) to Defendant's counsel within 20 days of this order.

CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Defendant's motion to compel responses to his first set of Special Interrogatories and Form Interrogatories. Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses within 20 days of this order. The court GRANTS Defendant's request for sanctions. Plaintiff is ordered to pay $620 in sanctions to Defendant's counsel within 20 days of this order. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 26, 2026 _____________________________ Sarah J. Heidel Judge of the Superior Court | Home -->)" -->