Case Number: MC023901 Hearing Date: June 12, 2014 Dept: A11

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH DISTRICT

CENTRE FOR NEURO SKILLS, )
) Case Number MC 023901
Plaintiff, )
) ORDER AFTER HEARING
V )
) Date of Hearing:
RAYMOND CARRILLO, IRENE ) June 12, 2014
CARRILLO, and does1 through 5, inclusive, ) Dept. A-11
) Judge Randolph A. Rogers
Defendants )
___________________________________)

The motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories (set one) by Raymond Carrillo and Irene Carrillo came on for hearing on June 12, 2014. Plaintiff Centre for Neuro Skills appeared through its counsel of record, ____________________. Defendants Raymond and Irene Carrillo appeared through their counsel of record, ___________________. The Court, having received and reviewed the pleadings of record and evidence submitted and having considered argument of counsel, it is hereby ORDERED:

The Plaintiff’s motion to compel further answers is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatories number 15.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.4, and 50.6. Plaintiff’s motion to award sanctions for attorney’s fees is DENIED.

The court reserves jurisdiction over an award of sanctions as requested by either party pending further order of the court or trial of the action.

SO ORDERED this the _____ day of June, 2014.

______________________
RANDOLPH A. ROGERS,
JUDGE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH DISTRICT

CENTRE FOR NEURO SKILLS, )
) Case Number MC 023901
Plaintiff, )
) ORDER AFTER HEARING
V )
) Date of Hearing:
RAYMOND CARRILLO, IRENE ) June 12, 2014
CARRILLO, and does1 through 5, inclusive, ) Dept. A-11
) Judge Randolph A. Rogers
Defendants )
___________________________________)

The Court bases the Order After Hearing of this date upon the following Statement of Decision:

1. On September 20, 2011, Aaron Carrillo (“Aaron”), the son of Defendants Raymond and Irene Carrillo (“Defendants”), was admitted to the facilities of Plaintiff Centre for Neuro Skills (“Plaintiff”) for treatment of injuries. Defendants signed the admissions papers on behalf of Aaron, representing themselves as guarantors.

2. Treatment was given, but disagreement between Plaintiff and Aaron’s insurance carrier apparently arose, and full payment was not made to Plaintiff. On November 20, 2012, the Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Defendants alleging breach of contract and claiming $387,256.53 in damages. A demurrer was filed on January 22, 2013, but was mooted by the filing of a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on January 16, 2013. Defendants filed their Answer on March 14, 2013.

3. Form Interrogatories (“Rogs”), set one, were propounded by Plaintiff upon Defendants on July 15, 2013. The responses were received on August 30, 2013. After a series or correspondences, the parties consented to increase the time to file a motion to compel till January 15, 2014.

4. Plaintiff filed the present motions on January 14, 2014. Defendants filed their opposition on March 10, 2014.

5. At hearing on March 11, 2014, on representation by Defense counsel that the case was close to settlement, the Plaintiff’s motions were continued to this date.

6. In the interim, Defendant moved for, and the Court granted on June 3, 2014, leave to file a first amended answer and cross-complaint.

7. General considerations for motions to compel further answer – Under CCP §2030.300, a party may move for an order compelling further answers to an interrogatory if the responding party provides evasive or incomplete answers or where an objection is without merit or too general.

8. Timeliness – A motion to compel further answers under CCP §2030.300 must be brought within 45 days after service of response. CCP §2030.300(c). The motion was timely made pursuant to the parties’ agreement.

9. Separate statement — CRC Rule 3.1345(a) requires motions to compel answers at a deposition be accompanied by a separate statement of disputed items. Plaintiff’s motion contains a separate statement and complies with this requirement.

10. Meet and confer – A motion to compel further answers must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under CCP §2016.040. Section 2016.040 requires the declaration to state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt was made to resolve each issue presented informally. The parties do not dispute that there was an adequate meet and confer effort, and from the history of correspondence, Plaintiff has engaged in a sufficient good faith effort to meet and confer.

11. CCP §2030.300 – The form Rogs in dispute are numbers 15.1, and 50.1 through 50.6. Rog 15.1 calls for all facts and information upon which denials and affirmative defenses are made in the Defendants’ answer.

“Responding party denies all material allegations in the complaint in that there is a pending workers compensation action on behalf of Aaron Carillo wherein CNS is a lien claimant for medical services provided and Responding party contends that Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy lies in the workers compensation action. Furthermore, payments have been received by CNS from Responding Party and Aaron Carillo’s medical insurance provider. All documents produced simultaneously with the Response to the Request for Production of Documents are all documents which support all of Responding Party’s denials and affirmative defenses.”

12. Defendants’ original answer contended 15 affirmative defenses, including “laches,” estoppel,” “contributory fault,” “recklessness of Plaintiff,” and “failure to mitigate,” among others. The amended answer adds several other affirmative defenses on top the original 15. As is plainly obvious, the above response is entirely unresponsive to, at a minimum, the listed affirmative defenses. While the response can perhaps be deemed responsive to the affirmative defenses for “other entities responsible,” “set-off,” “failure to name indispensable parties,” and “exclusive remedy doctrine,” it is wholly inadequate as to the remaining affirmative defenses. As such, the response is plainly incomplete

13. In contrast, Rogs 50.1 through 50.6 seek discovery of what facts and information is held by Defendants regarding the contract or agreements between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, particularly about the Defendants’ status as guarantors of Aaron’s medical bills. To each of these Rogs, Defendants answered uniformly:

“Responding party contends that there is a workers compensation case initiated and pending on behalf of Aaron Carillo wherein CNS is a lien claimant for medical services rendered, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Case Number ADJ8838013. Responding party contends that the exclusive remedy for collection for payment owing to CNS for services rendered to Aaron Carrillo lies in the workers compensation matter.”

14. This response is certainly responsive to Rogs 50.3 and 50.5, seeking information on excuse of performance of the agreement and grounds the agreement is unenforceable, respectively. However, it is hardly responsive, for instance, to say that there is a workers compensation matter as an exclusive remedy for collection where the question asked was whether “any agreement alleged in the pleadings [was] terminated by mutual agreement, release, accord and satisfaction, or novation?” At best, this is response might be construed as a meandering method of replying in the negative. However, CCP §2030.220 requires that answers “be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” CCP §2030.220(a). Such a round-about and uncertain answer clearly conflicts with the spirit of §2030.220(a).

15. Further, the discovery responses have essentially provided no substantive response as to the information held by Defendants as to the agreement. Even if the answer is that Defendants have no information, the circumstances of which seem unlikely, Defendants have a duty to so state after a reasonable investigation. Instead, Defendants have opted to cut and paste the same answer to each of the Rogs, providing only incomplete responses as a result.

16. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories (set one) from Defendants is GRANTED as to Rogs 15.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.4, and 50.6. Defendants motion is DENIED as to Rogs 50.3, and 50.5.

17. Sanctions – Under CCP §2030.300(d), monetary sanctions are mandatory against a party who unsuccessfully opposed a motion to compel unless there is substantial justification for the opposition or the circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Defendants argue that imposition of sanctions would be unjust because Defendants are “already burdened by staving off other creditors while caring for their gravely injured son.” Opposition at 3:24-25. Certainly, the Defendants’ situation presents cause for sympathy; however, that does not excuse them of their obligation to provide proper and responsive discovery responses.

18. Particularly in light of the multiple extensions provided by Plaintiff, and the continuance granted at counsel’s representation at the prior hearing, Defendants have had ample time to draft and prepare responsive answers to Plaintiff’s discovery request. That they have not done so, despite having full knowledge of the pendency of the motion and despite the efforts by Plaintiff to resolve the issues informally, operates to cause injustice upon the Plaintiff, not the Defendants. The injustice upon Defendants is one thrust upon them by the circumstances of life. The injustice upon Plaintiff, however, is one engendered by the Defendants’ failure to effectively comply with discovery.

19. Nevertheless, in light of Defendants’ recent substitution of counsel, as noted in this Court’s June 3rd order at ¶5, as well as the inevitable new round of discovery responses necessitated by the filing of an amended answer, the court reserves jurisdiction over an award of sanctions as requested by either party pending further order of the court or trial of the action.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the ______ day of June, 2014.

_____________________________
RANDOLPH A. ROGERS, JUDGE