13-639438
Motion No. 1. Demurrer.

Defendant Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian’s Demurrer to the First Cause of Action For Breach of Contract is SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend, on the basis that the Complaint fails to adequately allege the elements of breach of the employment handbook terms, and the damages proximately caused thereby, given the express terms in the handbook that allow termination of Plaintiff’s employment with, or without cause and with, or without compliance with the disciplinary procedures therein.

The Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action For Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy is sustained with 15 days leave to amend, on the basis that the Complaint fails to adequately allege the elements of termination of plaintiff’s employment was a violation public policy, that termination was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s damages, and on the basis that the cause of action appears to be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Motion No. 2. Motion To Strike.

The court’s ruling on the Defendant’s demurrer renders this motion moot.

Plaintiff shall file and serve his amended complaint within ten days of the hearing of this motion.

Moving party to give notice.

Motions No. 3-8. Defendant’s Motion to Compel

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s service of the subject discovery responses renders these motions moot as the discovery responses themselves. The court has the right to impose sanctions pursuant to CRC 3.1348. The court awards a total of $2,912.50 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record. Sanctions to be paid to counsel for Defendant within 30 days of the hearing of these motions.

Moving party to give notice.

Timeliness. As these are straight motions to compel responses to discovery, there is no statutory deadlines within which to file a motion to compel. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404. Thus, the Defendant’s motions are timely.

Meet and Confer. As this is a straight motion to compel interrogatory, documents request responses and to deem Request for Admisssions admitted, there is no statutory requirement to engage in efforts to informally resolve the dispute(s) before filing a motion to compel. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, at 411.

Burden of Proof. The burden of proof is upon the party moving to compel discovery responses. Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 316, 334.

The conceded receipt of the five sets of discovery responses while these motions were pending renders the motion to compel/deem Request for Admissions moot. This then leaves to the court to determine whether sanctions should be imposed. The court has the power to award sanctions notwithstanding the receipt of response while the motion is pending. Sanctions can be awarded, notwithstanding the fact the responses were served while the motion was pending. CRC 3.1348. Thus the court has the right to award sanctions for each of the five motions.

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions. Plaintiff’s request is based upon two erroneous assumptions, first that he is in the right and second, that Defendant was required to engage in meet and confer efforts before filing these motions. Plaintiff is wrong on both points. All five sets of discovery were due 35 days after service by mail by statute. Plaintiff is not “entitled” to more time under the Discovery Act. His failure to serve responses or request more time within the statutory 35 days means that his client has waived any objections to the five sets of discovery. The wronged party is the Defendant. If Plaintiff’s counsel is unable to handle the workload, he should hire more held.

There is no requirement for meet and confer for any straight motion to compel. CCP Sections 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b) & 2033.280(b), Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, at 411.

Thus, Plaintiffs request for sanctions is DENIED.

Sanctions. CCP Sections 2023.010 & 2030.290(c), 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c) & 2033.280(c) authorize an award of monetary sanctions against a party who fails to provide responses to discovery and who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel. CCP 2033.280(c) requires the court to impose sanctions.

Defendant complied with the requirements of CCP Section 2023.040 by identifying the type of sanctions and against who they are being sought in each of the five notices of motion.