2010-00081081-CU-PO

Nathaniel Weiskircher vs. American Airlines

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories

Filed By: Rhoads, Kathleen M.

Defendant Nova Ortho-Med, Inc.’s (“Nova”) motion for an order compelling Plaintiff
Nathaniel Weiskircher’s (“Plaintiff”) further response to Special Interrogatory No. 33,
Set Two, is UNOPPOSED and is GRANTED.

According to the moving papers and supporting declaration, Nova served the Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, on January 23, 2014. Plaintiff provided an unverified
response (without objections) to Special Interrogatory No. 33, which asks Plaintiff to
identify the alleged design defects in the aisle transfer chair that is the subject of
Plaintiff’s pleading. The parties met and conferred thereon, and Plaintiff agreed to an
open extension for Nova to compel further responses to the subject discovery. Plaintiff
produced a document as his response to the discovery request, but Nova contends
that that document – a letter — does not list the alleged defects and thus does not
properly respond to the interrogatory. Nova requested a further response to Special
Interrogatory No. 33, and ultimately, Plaintiff refused to provide one.

The papers before the Court confirm that Plaintiff’s response to Special Interrogatory
No. 33 is evasive and incomplete, and that the letter he provided is an inadequate
response to the interrogatory. Accordingly, no later than June 13, 2014, Plaintiff shall
provide a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 33, as requested in the moving
papers.

Because the motion is unopposed, Nova’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.
Although California Rule of Court 3.1348(a) [former Rule 341(a)] purports to authorize
sanctions if the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific
statute governing this discovery authorize sanctions only if the motion was
unsuccessfully made or opposed. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c)
(interrogatories).) Any order imposing sanctions under the Rules of Court 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 failure to comply with discovery obligations may lead the
Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. (
See Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481.)

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

Item 2 2010-00081081-CU-PO

Nathaniel Weiskircher vs. American Airlines

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories

Filed By: Rhoads, Kathleen M.

Defendant Nova Ortho-Med, Inc.’s (“Nova”) motion for an order compelling Plaintiff
Nathaniel Weiskircher’s (“Plaintiff”) responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and
further responses to Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”), Set Two, is UNOPPOSED and
is GRANTED.

Nova served the Form Interrogatories, Set Two, on January 23, 2014, but Plaintiff did
not serve any responses thereto. Nova also served Requests for Admission (“RFAs”),
Set Two, the same day, but Plaintiff provided only unverified responses thereto, and
Nova contends those responses are evasive and deficient.

The papers before the Court confirm that Plaintiff has not responded to the subject
discovery, and that Plaintiff’s responses to the subject RFAs are evasive and
incomplete. Accordingly, no later than June 13, 2014, Plaintiff shall serve verified
written responses, without objections, to Nova’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, as well
as further verified responses to Nova’s RFAs, Set Two, as requested in the moving
papers.

Because the motion is unopposed, Nova’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.
Although California Rule of Court 3.1348(a) [former Rule 341(a)] 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. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c)
(interrogatories); 2033.290(d) (further responses to RFAs).) Any order imposing
sanctions under the Rules of Court 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 failure to comply
with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery
process and award sanctions on that basis. (See Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins.
Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481.)

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