On 01/16/2018 a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice case was filed by JUANA MARIA ROMERO against PROVIDENCE HOLY CROSS FOUNDATION in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LAURA A. SEIGLE
ROMERO JUANA MARIA
PROVIDENCE HOLY CROSS FOUNDATION
PERESS LEO M.D.
DOES 1 TO 100
7/2/2019: Minute Order
5/22/2018: STATEMENT OF DAMAGES (PERSONAL INJURY OR WRONGFUL DEATH)
1/16/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
STATEMENT OF DAMAGES (PERSONAL INJURY OR WRONGFUL DEATH)Read MoreRead Less
Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death); Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Juana Maria Romero (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC689856 Hearing Date: December 02, 2019 Dept: 4B
TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT PROVIDENCE HOLY CROSS MEDICAL CENTER’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
On January 16, 2018, plaintiff Juana Maria Romero (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Providence Holy Cross Foundation (“Defendant”) and Leo Peress, M.D. On July 30, 2019, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One and Set Two, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff did not request an extension. After not receiving responses, defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter, but did not receive any response. Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff’s responses to discovery.
Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)
Plaintiff filed no opposition to these motions and did not serve responses to Defendant’s requests for discovery. However, the Court notes that only three filing fees were paid for the motions to compel responses to the four sets of discovery which should have been filed as four separate motions with four separate filing fees paid. Defendant is to pay one additional filing fee and file proof of payment. Subject to the filing of that additional fee, Defendant’s motions are GRANTED. Plaintiff is to serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One and Two, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One within twenty (20) days of the date of the Order.
Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.