| Roman v. Santa Clara Valley Medical Center |
CASE NO. 112CV223557 |
|
| DATE: 25 July 2014 |
TIME: 9:00 |
LINE NUMBER: 3 |
This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 19 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 19 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Thursday 24 July 2014. Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.
On 25 July 2014, the motion of DefendantSanta ClaraValleyMedicalCenter (“Defendant”) to Plaintiff Yvette Michelle Roman (“Plaintiff”) terminating sanction was argued and submitted.[1]
Defendants did not file formal opposition to the motion. She did, however, serve papers filed on 22 July 2014 indicating that she has served code-compliant responses.[2]
Statement of Facts
Plaintiff brings causes of action alleging medical negligence, lack of informed consent and breach of contract arising out of a necessary abdominal hysterectomy procedure involving the termination of a pregnancy at 21 weeks on 29 March 2011, at Santa ClaraValleyMedicalCenter. Plaintiff also claims to have been physically injured.
Thus, Plaintiff filed this complaint on 2 May 2012. Named, as defendants are the County of Santa Clara, Lisa M. Lee, M.D., Marisa Chavez, M.D., and Michelle P. Hugin, M.D.
Discovery Dispute
On 11 February 2013, Defendant served Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff.
On 10 May 2013, Defendant received by mail Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, but without verifications.
On 21 May 2014, this court order Plaintiff to serve verified responses to Defendant form and special interrogatories within 20 days.
Analysis
To this date, Defendant has not received any responses to these discovery requests.
As stated above, Plaintiff states that she has served code compliant responses, meaning that the responses are verified and in proper form. Copies of the responses have not been served with the token opposition papers.
In Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409, the Court of Appeal recognized that, in exercise of its discretion and based on the circumstances of the particular case, the trial court is in the best position to determine whether action taken subsequent to the filing of a discovery motion renders that motion moot.
This Court will assume that the responses are verified and in proper form.
Order
The motion of Defendants for terminating sanctions is denied as MOOT without prejudice to the Defendants appearing in court to argue that the responses are not code compliant.
[1] Rule of Court 3.1345(d) states: “A motion concerning interrogatories, inspection demands, or admission requests must identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number.”
[2] “The failure to file a written opposition or to appear at a hearing or the voluntary provision of discovery shall not be deemed an admission that the motion was proper or that sanctions should be awarded.” Rule of Court 3.1348(b). Additionally, the court has considered the responses even though they were untimely filed.
Link to this page