Juanita Ramirez vs Alois Zauner, MD et al

Case Number

22CV02869

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 06/07/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Compel

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth herein, the motions of defendant Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital to compel responses to its first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents are granted. Plaintiff Juanita Ramirez, both individually and as successor-in-interest to Atilano Alvarez Ramirez, shall serve verified responses to each of these sets of discovery on or before July 8, 2024. Except to the extent plaintiff has filed a motion for relief under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 or 2031.300 at or before the time of service of the discovery responses, the discovery responses not subject to such a motion for relief shall be without objection. Counsel for Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital shall serve a copy of this order on counsel for Ramirez, electronically at all known email addresses and by mail, and file proof of such service with the court on or before June 14, 2024. The court awards monetary sanctions against plaintiff Juanita Ramirez and her counsel, attorney Julie Lim, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $680.00, to be paid to counsel for defendant Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital on or before July 8, 2024.

Background:

On July 25, 2022, plaintiff Juanita Ramirez filed her original complaint in this action against, among others, defendant Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital (SBCH). On the first page of the original complaint, the email address for counsel for plaintiff, attorney Julie C. Lim, is “julie@limlawfirm.com”.

On February 23, 2023, attorney Lim filed a Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information which provided contact information but did not change the email address.

On December 28, 2023, SBCH filed its answer to the complaint, concurrently serving the answer by electronic service on counsel for plaintiff to the email address listed.

On January 2, 2024, SBCH electronically served plaintiff separately in her two different capacities, to the email address listed for its counsel, with its first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. (Clinkenbeard decl. re form interrogatories, ¶¶ 5-6 & exhibits A & B; Clinkenbeard decl. re special interrogatories, ¶¶ 5-6 & exhibits A & B; Clinkenbeard decl. re requests for production of documents, ¶¶ 5-6 & exhibits A & B.)

No response to those discovery requests has been received by SBCH. (Clinkenbeard decl. re form interrogatories, ¶ 3; Clinkenbeard decl. re special interrogatories, ¶ 3; Clinkenbeard decl. re requests for production of documents, ¶ 3.)

On February 2, 2024, a case management conference was held at which counsel for plaintiff did not appear. The court set an order to show cause re sanctions for March 1, 2024. The minute order including the OSC was mailed to the parties on February 6.

On February 29, 2024, attorney Lim filed a declaration addressing the OSC. The first page of the declaration sets forth a different email address for Lim, “limlawfirm@gmail.com”. On March 1, the court continued the OSC to June 28 because the declaration of Lim was not available to the court at the time of the March 1 hearing.

On March 26, 2024, SBCH filed these three motions to compel responses to the discovery. The motions were served electronically on counsel for plaintiff at the “julie@limlawfirm.com” email address.

On May 1, 2024, the court mailed notice of continuing the case management conference and OSC re sanctions from June 28 to July 26.

No opposition or other response to these motions to compel have been filed.

Analysis:

The court notes the anomaly in attorney Lim’s email address as being different in her latest filing with the court from the email address appearing on her last notice of change of contact information.

“A party or other person whose electronic service address changes while the action or proceeding is pending must promptly file a notice of change of address electronically with the court and must serve this notice electronically on all other parties and all other persons required to be served.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(g)(1).) “An electronic service address is presumed valid for a party or other person if the party or other person files electronic documents with the court from that address and has not filed and served notice that the address is no longer valid.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(g)(3.)

Attorney Lim has electronically filed documents showing the limlawfirm.com email address and has not filed (or apparently served) a notice of change of that electronic address or notice that such address is no longer valid. Thus, service of both the underlying discovery and the motions to compel is presumptively valid. To the extent Lim intends a different email address than the limlawfim.com email address, Lim must file and serve a notice of the new email address.

The motions being otherwise proper, the court will grant the motions to compel. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) Unless plaintiff moves for relief from waiver as provided in sections 2030.290 and 2031.300 (or a written stipulation is agreed) prior to or concurrently with the service of the responses, the responses shall be verified and without objection.

SBCH has requested an award of monetary sanctions. Monetary sanctions for the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, are appropriate. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.030, subd. (a), 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) The court notes that no opposition has been filed and that the amount of fees for each motion includes anticipated time at the hearing. The court finds that reasonable attorney fees and costs in connection with all of these motions is $680.00.