This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:25:01 (UTC).

CEASAR WEATHERSPOON ET AL VS CHILDRENS HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES

Case Summary

On 02/02/2018 CEASAR WEATHERSPOON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CHILDRENS HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2671

  • Filing Date:

    02/02/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

WEATHERSPOON CEASAR

WEATHERSPOON LA TONYA

Claimant

ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY ALIAS INTER-CON SECURITY

Respondents, Defendants, Cross Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES

DOES 1 TO 50

VIA SEATING INC.

WESTERN OFFICE INTERIORS

COF LIQUIDATION INC.

KNOLL INC.

MOES 1 THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE

CREST OFFICE FURNITURE DBA BLUESPACE DBA OFFICE SOLUTIONS CALIFORNIA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorney

STEINER NEIL S. ESQ.

Claimant Attorney

KIRSCH JOSHUA ERIK

Defendant Attorneys

LAUFENBERG JEFFREY J.

SETCHELL JOHN LUKE

Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

EDIC WILLIAM S

HALL ANN

 

Court Documents

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

7/9/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Separate Statement

7/9/2019: Separate Statement

Application

10/29/2018: Application

Request for Judicial Notice

10/30/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Complaint

11/16/2018: Complaint

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

2/20/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

2/20/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Proof of Personal Service

2/28/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Separate Statement

3/19/2019: Separate Statement

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

3/19/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Notice of Deposit - Jury

3/28/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person

3/29/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person

Answer

4/2/2019: Answer

Cross-Complaint

4/2/2019: Cross-Complaint

Request for Dismissal

4/26/2019: Request for Dismissal

Cross-Complaint

5/6/2019: Cross-Complaint

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

7/17/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

SUMMONS

2/2/2018: SUMMONS

33 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/02/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2019
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2019
  • Hearingat 13:30 PM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2019
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2019
  • Hearingat 11:00 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4; Jury Trial - Not Held - Clerical Error

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2019
  • DocketMotion for Summary Judgment; Filed by Children's Hospital Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2019
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by Children's Hospital Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (OF WILLIAM LEAMON CUMMINGS/ COMPENDIUM OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT); Filed by Children's Hospital Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
40 More Docket Entries
  • 11/16/2018
  • DocketComplaint ((1st)); Filed by Ceasar Weatherspoon (Plaintiff); La Tonya Weatherspoon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2018
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike; Filed by Children's Hospital Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2018
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by Children's Hospital Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2018
  • DocketApplication (for Lien); Filed by Arch Insurance Company (Claimant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Ceasar Weatherspoon (Plaintiff); La Tonya Weatherspoon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Ceasar Weatherspoon (Plaintiff); La Tonya Weatherspoon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC692671    Hearing Date: March 30, 2021    Dept: 28

Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production (All Set One)

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On February 2, 2018, Plaintiffs Ceasar Weatherspoon and La Tonya Weatherspoon (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.  Plaintiffs allege premises liability, products liability, and negligence in the complaint arising from injuries sustained after a chair slipped out from under Plaintiff on February 2, 2016.

On November 16, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint.

On February 20, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to their first amended complaint to rename Doe 2 as Defendant Crest Office Furniture dba Bluespace DBA Office Solutions California.

On November 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.

Trial is set for May 14, 2021.

PARTIES’ REQUESTS

Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel Defendant Crest Office Furniture to serve verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) for failing to serve timely responses.

Plaintiffs also asks the Court to impose $4,888.60 in monetary sanctions against Defendant Crest Office Furniture for its abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.  All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

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., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (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.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for 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., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

DISCUSSION

On May 21, 2019, Plaintiff Ceasar Weatherspoon served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) on Defendant Crest Office Furniture by U.S. mail.  (Steiner Decl. (“Steiner Decl.”), ¶ 4-7, Exh. 1-3.)  Defendant Crest Office Furniture has not provided responses as of the time Neil Steiner signed his declaration on November 3, 2020.  (Steiner Decl., 10.)

The Court finds the motions are properly granted.  Plaintiff Ceasar Weatherspoon paid a sufficient number of filing fees despite filing the three motions in one pleading in compliance with Government Code section 70617, subdivision (f)Plaintiff Ceasar Weatherspoon served written discovery requests on Defendant Crest Office Furniture and Defendant Crest Office Furniture failed to serve timely responses.  There is no indication that either Defendant Crest Office Furniture acted with a substantial justification or that there are other circumstances that would make an imposition of sanctions unjust.

Plaintiffs’ request for $4,888.60 in monetary sanctions for these straight-forward motions is unreasonable.  Rather, the Court finds $950.00 to be a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Defendant Crest Office Furniture for its abuse of the discovery process. Plaintiff Ceasar Weatherspoon because Plaintiff Ceasar Weatherspoon was the only propounding party of the written discovery requests.

CONCLUSION

The motions are GRANTED.

Defendant Crest Office Furniture is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) on Plaintiff Ceasar Weatherspoon within twenty days of this ruling.

Defendant Crest Office Furniture is ordered to pay $950.00 in monetary sanctions to Plaintiff Ceasar Weatherspoon within thirty days of this ruling.

Plaintiff Ceasar Weatherspoon is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Plaintiff Ceasar Weatherspoon is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where KNOLL INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where WESTERN OFFICE INTERIORS INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer KIRSCH JOSHUA ERIK