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

20 days leave to amend. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 27, 2026 _____________________________ Sarah J. Heidel Judge of the Superior Court

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

| | | Hearing Date: | August 27, 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 this motion to compel Plaintiff's responses to request for production, set one. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.300(b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.300(a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

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 production of documents 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. Sec. 2031.300(c).)

DISCUSSION On March 16, 2026, Defendant served Request for Production on Plaintiff. (Sakadjian Decl., P. 3; Exh. A.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to provide verified responses, despite Defendant's meet and confer efforts. (Id., P.P. 4-7; Exh. B.) Plaintiff was properly served with the discovery at issue, and has failed to provide responses. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to the discovery at issue. The motion is granted.

Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,060 against Plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, 2023.010, and 2023.030. Because the failure to respond is a misuse of the discovery process, Defendant is entitled to sanctions. However, the award for sanctions will be reduced due to the motion's straightforward nature, its similarity to other motions filed in this matter, and the lack of an opposition. Plaintiff is ordered to pay $560 in sanctions ($250 an hour for 2 hours, plus $60 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 Request for Production of Documents. 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 $560 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 27, 2026 _____________________________ Sarah J. Heidel Judge of the Superior Court | Home -->)" -->