SAMUEL REECE VS WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ET AL

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: ****1169 Hearing Date: July 23, 2021 Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

SAMUEL REECE, vs. WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al.

Case No.: ****1169 Hearing Date: July 23, 2021

Plaintiff Samuel Reece’s motion for reconsideration is denied. Defendant Wells Fargo’s request the Court sanction Plaintiff is denied.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash and/or stay his deposition by Defendant is denied. Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Defendant Wells Fargo’s motion for terminating sanctions is denied. The parties’ requests for monetary sanctions are denied.

A. Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff Samuel Reece (“Plaintiff”) moves for reconsideration of the Court’s March 17, 2021 ruling on the four motions to compel further responses of Defendant Wells Fargo Bank National Association (“Defendant”) (“March 17 Ruling”) as well as the Court’s March 19, 2021 ruling granting Defendant’s motion to compel deposition of Plaintiff (“March 19 Ruling”). Plaintiff also requests the Court strike the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant National Foundation for Debt Management (“NFDM”), that the Court enter default against NFDM, and that the Court impose sanctions in the amount of $500 against NFDM. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2.) The Court notes that the minutes indicate that during the hearing on March 17, 2021, the Court advanced the Motion to Dismiss from May 21, 2021 to April 21, 2021, pursuant to the request of moving party. (3/17/21 Minute Order.) The motion was not heard on April 21, 2021 and is indeed scheduled for July 26, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. Plaintiff moves on the grounds that NFDM’s participation in the underlying discovery motion constituted a sanctionable abuse of the discovery process in violation of C.C.P. ;2023. In opposition, Defendant request sanctions should be imposed against Plaintiff under C.C.P. ;128.7 for his abuse of the discovery process and for filing a frivolous motion for reconsideration pursuant to C.C.P. ;;1008(d), and 2023.010(g). (Opposition, pgs. 2, 6, 7.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on April 1, 2021. Defendant filed an opposition on July 9, 2021, and Plaintiff filed a reply on July 16, 2021. NFDM did not file an opposition to the instant motion.

C.C.P. ;1008(a) provides, as follows: “When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.”

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the March 17 Ruling and the March 19 Ruling (collectively, “Prior Rulings”) on the grounds NFDM is a forfeited corporation that lacks capacity to appear in Court. (Motion, pgs. 4-5.) However, Plaintiff’s reasoning is misplaced, since NFDM was not a moving party on the underlying motions, which were each brought by Defendant. To the extent Plaintiff moves only for reconsideration of the Court’s rescheduling of NFDM’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff has not established that the rescheduling of the hearing is subject to a motion for reconsideration. The alleged forfeited corporate status of NFDM is not relevant to the Court’s Prior Rulings, which were issued with respect to the discovery motions filed by Defendant. Plaintiff did not establish new or different facts, circumstances, or law to warrant reconsideration of the Prior Rulings, which were brought by Defendant, not NFDM.

Plaintiff did not establish new or different facts, circumstances, or law to warrant reconsideration of the Prior Rulings. Plaintiff submits no argument relating to the underlying discovery motions, and only argues that the corporate status of NFDM warrants reconsideration of the Prior Rulings in their entirety. However, the corporate status of NFDM is not relevant to whether Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff’s deposition and/or further responses to discovery. Plaintiff argues that NFDM’s forfeited corporate status is relevant because it is accordingly barred from participating in the litigation. (Reply, pgs. 3-5.) However, this does not address the relevance of NFDM’s corporate status to the underlying discovery motions and the Prior Rulings on those motions, which were brought by Defendant.

Plaintiff’s request that the Court vacate the motion to dismiss filed by NFDM is improper. To the extent Plaintiff contends NFDM is not entitled to move to dismiss the action, these arguments can be addressed in response to that motion and not in the instant motion to reconsider Prior Rulings on discovery motions filed by Defendant. Plaintiff’s requests the Court enter default against NFDM and for monetary sanctions against NFDM are denied.

The Court notes Michael Thurman (“Thurman”), counsel of record for NFDM specially appeared at the March 17, 2021 hearing, and requested the Court advance the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted. However, Plaintiff fails to address how this oral request to reschedule a hearing by a named defendant qualifies as an “application” for the purposes of C.C.P. ;1008. In addition, Thurman did not make an appearance at the March 19, 2021 hearing.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

Request for Sanctions

Defendant asserts Plaintiff should be sanctioned in an unstated amount for his abuse of the discovery process pursuant to C.C.P. ;;1008(d), 128.7, and 2023.010(g). The Court declines to sanction Plaintiff for filing the instant motion for reconsideration. Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.

B. Motion to Quash/Stay Plaintiff’s Deposition

Plaintiff moves for an order staying the taking of the deposition and/or quashing the April 1, 2021 Deposition Notice of Plaintiff (“Notice”) issued by Defendant. Defendant moves to quash the Notice on the following grounds: (1) NFDM and its attorney concealed from the court that NFDM is a forfeited foreign corporation that lacks capacity to defend the lawsuit or participate in discovery, including the deposition of Plaintiff; (2) the Court has a duty to void “the subject contract” for illegality; and (3) the Notice requests documents that are the subject of Plaintiff’s pending Motion for Reconsideration. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-3.) In opposition, Defendant requests an award of monetary sanctions in the amount of $959 for costs associated with opposing the motion. (Opposition, pg. 4; C.C.P. ;2025.410(d).)

C.C.P. ;2025.410 provides as follows: “Any party served with a deposition notice that does not comply with Article 2 (commencing with Section 2025.210) waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection specifying that error or irregularity at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled, on the party seeking to take the deposition… In addition to serving this written objection, a party may also move for an order staying the taking of the deposition and quashing the deposition notice. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. The taking of the deposition is stayed pending the determination of this motion.”

Defendant served its Notice of Deposition on April 1, 2021, for a deposition scheduled to occur on April 15, 2021, and on April 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed objections to errors and irregularities in the Notice (“Objections”). The Court notes the Objections do not specify irregularities or errors in the Notice itself, but instead set forth the various reasons Plaintiff asserts he should not be compelled to sit for deposition. Namely, Plaintiff objects to the Notice on the following grounds: (1) NFDM is barred from participating in litigation as a forfeited corporation; (2) the motion for reconsideration is pending; and (3) the underlying contract is void for illegality and the Court should modify the scope of the deposition accordingly. However, as discussed below, none of these objections warrant quashing and/or staying the deposition of Plaintiff.

First, in light of the Court’s ruling denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, to the extent Plaintiff moves to quash the Notice and/or stay the deposition on the grounds the motion for reconsideration is pending, the motion is denied as moot. The discovery orders of the Prior Rulings compelling Plaintiff to produce supplemental responses, documents, and to appear for deposition stand.

Second, Plaintiff’s argument that NFDM is an allegedly forfeited foreign corporation is not relevant to Defendant’s right to conduct discovery in the instant action. The Notice at issue in the instant motion was served by Defendant, not NFDM. Plaintiff asserts NFDM’s counsel has informed the Court he will attend the Defendant’s deposition of Plaintiff, which Plaintiff argues NFDM is not allowed to do as a forfeited corporation and requests the Court order NFDM’s counsel to refrain from attending the deposition. However, Plaintiff cites to no authority suggesting NFDM’s attendance at a deposition conducted by Defendant amounts to unlawful participation in litigation activities. (Motion, pgs. 9-10, 12-13.) Rather, the cases cited by Plaintiff all involve a suspended corporation’s right to come into Court and defend or prosecute an action. The discovery at issue is not brought by NFDM, and as such, arguments that NFDM lacks capacity to participate in discovery are irrelevant.

Finally, Plaintiff argues the Court has a duty to sua sponte void the illegal contract and thereby streamline the issues to be covered by Plaintiff’s deposition in the interest of judicial economy. (Motion, pgs. 16-19.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that NFDM has stated under penalty of perjury it never counseled mortgagor Stella Reece and that it is not qualified to administer reverse mortgage counseling, rendering the underlying contract illegal and in violation of public policy. (Motion, pgs. 18-19.) Plaintiff argues the Court should modify the Notice to eliminate questions surrounding the validity of the contract, which will significantly narrow the scope of the deposition. (Motion, pg. 19.) However, the purported illegality of a contract between Defendant and Stella Reece is not relevant to whether Plaintiff is required to sit for deposition, and the Court declines to sua sponte modify the scope of the Deposition Notice based on Plaintiff’s assertion the contract between Stella Reece and Defendant is void.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to quash and/or stay the Deposition Notice is denied.

Request for Sanctions

Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $959 for costs incurred in opposing the instant motion.

C.C.P. ;2025.410(d) provides that, “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to quash a deposition notice, 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.”

The Court finds in light of Plaintiff’s grounds for moving to quash the deposition, including the pending motion for reconsideration, circumstances make imposition of sanctions unjust, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s unsuccessful motion to quash.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

C. Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Defendant moves for an order imposing terminating sanctions against Plaintiff for his failure to comply with the Court’s March 19, 2021 Order, which compelled Plaintiff to appear for deposition and produce documents identified in the Deposition Notice by April 15, 2021. Defendant moves for terminating sanctions on the grounds Plaintiff has failed and refused to comply with the Court’s Order. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. ;;2023.010(g), 2023.030(d)(3), 2025.450(h).) Defendant also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $2,018.15 due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with his obligations under the discovery act. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. ;2025.450(g)(1).) [The Court notes Defendant does not, in the alternative, move for evidence and/or issue sanctions.] In opposition, Plaintiff requests an award of monetary sanctions in the amount of $500 against Defendant for costs incurred in opposing the instant motion. (Opposition, pgs. 5, 16.)

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes Defendant also argues Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s March 17, 2021 Order, which compelled Plaintiff to produce further responses to four separate discovery requests by April 21, 2021; however, this Order is not addressed in the Notice of Motion. (Motion, pg. 7.)

On motion, if a party “fails to obey an order compelling attendance, testimony, and production, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction” as provided in Section 2030.010, et seq. (C.C.P. ;2025.450(h).) The “court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after an opportunity for hearing, may impose” monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions “against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process[.]” (C.C.P. ;2023.030(a)-(d).) Failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery are misuses of the discovery process. (C.C.P. ;2033.010(d) and (g).)

Defendant submitted evidence Plaintiff has failed to obey the Court’s orders compelling attendance, testimony and production given Plaintiff has failed to appear for deposition and failed to produce responsive documents to the requests for discovery as ordered by the Court on March 17 and 19, 2021. However, Defendant is not entitled to an order granting terminating sanctions at this time. Defendant has not submitted evidence suggesting Plaintiff failed to obey the Court’s order compelling attendance at a deposition in a manner that warrants terminating sanctions. The evidence suggests Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court ordered deposition was not willful. Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the discovery orders was based, at least in part, on a mistaken belief that the corporate status of NFDM affected Defendant’s right to conduct discovery against Plaintiff, both in compelling Plaintiff to sit for deposition and to produce documents responsive to discovery requests. The Court has found arguments relating to NFDM’s corporate status are not relevant to Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s orders on discovery motions filed by Defendant. However, as of the date of Defendant’s filing of the instant motion, the Court had not yet ruled on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and/or motion to quash. In addition, even assuming arguendo, Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s orders, the imposition of terminating sanctions is premature. (See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793-784 [“The sanction of dismissal or the rendition of a default judgment against the disobedient party is ordinarily a drastic measure which should be employed with caution. [Citation] However, there is no question that a court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with his discovery obligations. [Citation] The refusal to reveal material evidence is deemed to be an admission that the claim or defense is without merit. [Citations]”].)

Defendant also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for his failure to comply with the Court’s orders pursuant to C.C.P. ;2025.450(g)(1), which provides for an award of monetary sanctions to a party that successfully moves to compel a deposition. However, the Court already awarded Defendant monetary sanctions in connection with its motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition in its March 19, 2021 ruling. The Court acknowledges Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s discovery orders; however, given Plaintiff’s pending motions for reconsideration as to those orders, the Court declines to award Defendant monetary sanctions at this time. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant is likewise denied. The request is not sufficiently supported.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is denied. The parties’ requests for monetary sanctions are denied.

Dated: July _____, 2021

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court

'

Case Number: ****1169    Hearing Date: March 19, 2021    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

SAMUEL REECE, vs. WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al.

Case No.: ****1169 Hearing Date: March 19, 2021

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for a deposition and produce documents by April 15, 2021, is granted.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is granted in the reduced sum of $374.15 (the court reporter fee for the non-appearance and the filing fee). Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank National Association (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Samuel Reece (“Plaintiff”) to appear for deposition and produce documents at the soonest date available since trial in the instant action is scheduled for June 18, 2021. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 2-4; C.C.P. ;2025.450.) Defendant requests an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the total amount of $2,558.15 due to Plaintiff’s failure to appear for deposition. (Notice of Motion, pg. 3; C.C.P. ;2025.450(g)(1).) In opposition, Plaintiff requests an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $200.

Background

On October 16, 2020, Defendant served Plaintiff with a Notice of Deposition of Plaintiff and Request for Production of Documents on Pro Per Plaintiff (“Notice”), with a deposition date noticed for November 12, 2020. (Decl. of Walser-Jolly ¶3, Exh. 1.) On November 2, 2020, Plaintiff served objections to the Notice, objecting on the grounds that COVID-19 shelter in place order prevented him from appearing at the deposition; however, plaintiff indicated he would attend a rescheduled deposition. (Decl. of Walser-Jolly ¶4, Exh. 2.) On November 4, 2020, Defendant informed Plaintiff that given Plaintiff’s objection to an in-person deposition due to COVID-19, Defendant would take the deposition remotely. (Decl. of Walser-Jolly ¶5, Exhs. 1, 5.) However, on November 6, 2020, Plaintiff objected to attending any deposition due to COVID-19 related orders, without indicating why he would be unable to attend a remote deposition. (Decl. of Walser-Jolly ¶6, Exh. 6.) On November 10, 2020, Defendant informed Plaintiff a remote deposition would not be in violation of shelter in place orders and accordingly, the November 12, 2020 deposition would go forward. (Decl. of Walser-Jolly ¶7, Exh. 5.) Plaintiff did not appear for his deposition on November 12, 2020 and a certificate of non-appearance was taken. (Decl. of Walser-Jolly ¶8, Exh. 6.) On December 8, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion.

Motion to Compel Deposition

C.C.P. ;2025.450(a) provides that, “[i]f, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action… without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination…, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

C.C.P. ;2025.410(a), provides that, “[a]ny party served with a deposition notice that does not comply with [the notice requirements in C.C.P. ;;2025.210 through 2025.290] waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection specifying that error or irregularity at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled, on the party seeking to take the deposition and any other attorney or party on whom the deposition notice was served.”

C.C.P. ;2025.450(b)(1) provides that, “[t]he motion [to compel deposition] shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

C.C.P. ;2025.450(b)(2) requires that the motion to compel deposition be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.

Defendant is entitled to an order compelling the deposition of Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not object to errors or defects in the deposition notice, which appears proper, and Plaintiff failed to appear at the noticed deposition date; as such, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling the attendance of Plaintiff for deposition. (C.C.P. ;2025.450(a).)

Defendant is also entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff produce documents requested in the Notice. Defendant submitted evidence suggesting good cause exists for the production of the documents since they are relevant to Defendant’s defenses and relate to contentions Plaintiff asserts in his SAC against Defendant, the damages Defendant allegedly caused Plaintiff, and any documents supporting Plaintiff’s allegations. (Decl. of Walser-Jolly ¶3, Exh. 1.) Notably, Plaintiff’s objections to the Notice did not include substantive objections to the request for production, and instead only addressed Plaintiff’s inability to attend an in-person deposition and refusal to produce documents requested in the notice. (Decl. of Walser-Jolly, Exhs. 2, 6.)

In opposition, Plaintiff submits no argument in response to Defendant’s motion to compel his deposition; rather, the opposition is entirely directed at Defendant’s motions to compel discovery responses. Plaintiff attributes his inability to respond to discovery to lasting effects of his COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 pneumonia, from which he asserts he still suffers, rendering him weak. However, Plaintiff does not address whether his COVID-19 illness affects his ability to attend a remote deposition. In addition, while Plaintiff asserts he is greatly restricted in his ability to gather the information necessary to respond to requests for discovery, Plaintiff fails to submit any competent evidence in support of this assertion. Notably, based on the record, Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital at least as of January 19, 2021, and Plaintiff submits no declaration from a physician or expert supporting his assertion that remaining effects of COVID-19 have rendered him incapable of gathering documents and responding to discovery.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff appear for deposition and produce documents identified in the Notice is granted.

Requests for Sanctions

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is granted. C.C.P. 2025.450(g)(1) provides that: “If a motion [to compel deposition] is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction… in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, 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.” Here, Plaintiff has provided no justification for his failure to appear at the deposition. Accordingly, Plaintiff is sanctioned $374.15 (the court reporter fee for the non-appearance and the filing fee).

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied in light of the Court’s ruling on the motion.

Dated: March _____, 2021

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: ****1169    Hearing Date: March 17, 2021    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

SAMUEL REECE, vs. WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al.

Case No.: ****1169 Hearing Date: March 17, 2021

Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission are granted. Supplemental code-compliant responses to the discovery are to be provided within 30 days.

Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff are denied.

Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are denied.

Four discovery motions are presently before the Court. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank National Association (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Samuel Reece (“Plaintiff”) to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One) (“RFPs”), and Requests for Admission (Set One) (“RFAs”). (C.C.P. ;;2030.300, 2031.310, 2033.290.) Defendant requests an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the total amount of $13,496.60, reflecting $3,520.65 for the motions directed at the Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, and RFPs and $2,934.65 for the motion directed at RFAs. In opposition, Plaintiff requests an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel in the total amount of $800, reflecting $200 for each motion. The Court notes Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant.

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s oppositions are untimely. Based on the March 17, 2021 hearing date, the deadline for Plaintiff to file and serve his oppositions was March 4, 2021; however, the oppositions were not filed until March 8, 2021. (C.C.P. ;1005(b).) The Court in its discretion elects to consider the oppositions.

Background for All Motions

On April 16, 2020, Defendant served its first set of Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, RFPs, and RFAs (collectively, “Discovery Requests”) on Plaintiff, and as such the deadline for response was May 21, 2020. On May 27, 2020, Plaintiff provided responses consisting of solely objections. After Defendant sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter, Plaintiff agreed to provide further responses by July 31, 2020, and the parties thereafter agreed to extend the deadline to August 31, 2020; however, Plaintiff failed to serve supplemental responses, and on September 30, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motions.

On January 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a request for vacating or continuing scheduled matters based on his recent hospitalization due to contracting COVID-19 and a lung infection, for which Plaintiff was taken by ambulance to the hospital on December 11, 2020. The Court notes that on February 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, which is scheduled for April 29, 2021.

Plaintiff filed oppositions to the motions on March 8, 2021, and on March 10, 2021, Defendant filed a joint reply to the four oppositions.

Motions to Compel Further

Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to the Discovery Requests.

Regarding the Interrogatories and RFPs, Plaintiff’s responses were limited to objections, which included burdensome and harassing, overbroad, remote in time, equal access, invasion of privacy, violates HIPPA, physician-patient privilege, violates privacy and confidentiality of tax returns. Regarding the RFA, Plaintiff’s responses were limited to improper objections including foundation, authentication, speculation, compound and hearsay. In opposition, Plaintiff does not submit justification for the objections he asserted in his initial responses to the Discovery Requests and submits no argument suggesting the Discovery Requests are improper such that he should not be compelled to provide a response. Rather, Plaintiff attributes his inability to respond to discovery to lasting effects of his COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 pneumonia, from which Plaintiff asserts he still suffers and has rendered him weak. However, based on his January 19, 2021 filing, Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital at least as of that date if not prior, and Plaintiff submits no declaration from a physician or expert supporting his assertion that remaining effects of COVID-19 have rendered him incapable of gathering documents and responding to discovery propounded on him almost a year ago. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to submit justification for his failure to respond to the Discovery Requests between the filing date of the instant motions in September 2020 and his hospitalization in December 2020. Plaintiff has not submitted evidence suggesting he is entitled to not participate in discovery.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff provide further responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, RFPs, and RFAs are granted. To the extent Plaintiff has made a claim of physician-patient privilege, Plaintiff is ordered to provide a privilege log. Otherwise, Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses without objection.

Requests for Sanctions

While Defendant is entitled to monetary sanctions as the prevailing party on the motions, the Court finds circumstances make the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff unjust. (C.C.P. ;;2033.290(d), 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h).) Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are denied.

Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are denied in light of the Court’s ruling on the motions.

Dated: March _____, 2021

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court