Center Point Development Group Inc vs Gwendolyn Campbell

Case Number

24CV00306

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 01/15/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motions to Compel (3)

Tentative Ruling

Jason W. Wansor, R. Scott Mullen of Rogers, Sheffield & Campbell, LLP for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Center Point Development Group, Inc.                                  

Bruce D. Rudman of Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman for Defendant and Cross-Complainant Gwendolyn Campbell

                       

RULING

The hearing on the three motions is continued to March 26, 2025, and Campbell’s counsel is directed to file a declaration with the court no later than March 14, 2025, setting forth the information articulated below.

Further, the March 5, 2025, hearing set on Plaintiff’s motion for deemed admissions is also ordered continued to March 26, 2025, to be heard and addressed along with the other motions.

Background

Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories (Set 1), Form Interrogatories—Construction Litigation (Set 1), and Requests for Production (Set 1) on Defendant Campbell on August 8, 2024. Multiple extensions of time were sought and granted, making responses due October 8, 2024. During that time, Campbell’s counsel prepared draft responses to the discovery, and made repeated unsuccessful attempts to contact his client. When he was subsequently able to reach his client on October 10 (2 days after the extended deadline), he was advised that she had undergone a medical procedure, not fully functioning, and was physically incapacitated and unable to assist him with the responses. He advised Plaintiff’s counsel in early November that Campbell was having medical issues and asked for patience, after which Plaintiff’s counsel asked for a doctor’s note. When Campbell’s counsel asked her for one, she advised she was hospitalized at that time.

Plaintiff filed the current motions to compel responses on November 13, 2024, seeking total sanctions of $7,380 against Campbell only.

Campbell has filed limited opposition to the motions, acknowledging that responses were not timely provided, and that Plaintiff is entitled to responses, but seeking additional time within which to provide verified discovery responses. He articulated the many attempts he made to obtain information from Campbell sufficient to provide responses to the discovery. Even after the motions were filed, he continued to attempt to seek Campbell’s assistance, and she urged him to seek additional time. He again asked for a doctor’s note, which he finally received on January 2. He concludes that he has diligently attempted to seek responses, but that his client’s illness made that impossible.

The opposition attaches a letter dated January 1, 2025, from Michael F. Cantwell MD, Campbell’s treating physician for primary Addison’s Disease, which is a rare, life-threatening endocrine disorder, which seriously impacts a person’s ability to perform daily activities, has debilitating symptoms, including weakness, fatigue, low blood pressure, unstable blood pressure, difficulty thinking and concentrating, and mental confusion. He described her current condition, stated that she is medical unable to make decisions, and her medical condition is significantly impairing her ability to make informed decisions regarding her health and personal affairs. He is attempting to stabilize her medically, although her medical situation is complicated by an underlying immune disorder (hypogammaglobulin) which requires IVIG infusions every 21 days. She was scheduled for her next infusion the following day (1/2/25), and he recommended that she could be evaluated in 60 days as they adjusted the treatment regimen and stabilized her physical health.

Plaintiff filed reply papers asserting a host of reasons why Campbell should not be accommodated, including objecting to the provision of any further time for responses, and seeking both an order directing that verified responses be provided within a specified time, and awarding sanctions. Plaintiff objects that the doctor’s note (which Plaintiff had expressly requested) provides no educational background or credentials and does not “explicitly” explain how or why Campbell’s medical issues impact her ability to complete basic discovery. Plaintiff suggests that the medical issue is being used as an excuse, since the letter notes she experienced a medical event in mid-October, and that she did not see her testifying medical professional until January 1, 2025.

While the Court understands Plaintiff’s frustration, Defendant’s health and well-being must take precedence at this time. Plaintiff asked Defendant for a doctor’s note, and now has been provided one which explains far more about her medical condition than Plaintiff would ordinarily be entitled to (given that her medical condition is not in issue in the case, and appears to be relevant only with respect to her current ability to respond to discovery), as well as information that she is currently medically unable to make decisions, and that her medical condition—which causes difficulty thinking and concentrating, as well as mental confusion—is currently significantly impairing her ability to handle her personal affairs. He recommends a reevaluation in 60 days to permit adjustments to her treatment to stabilize her health. The information before the court does not support Plaintiff’s contention that Campbell did not see her doctor until 1/1/25. Further, Plaintiff’s objection that Campbell’s medical excuse did not arise until mid-October is of little relevance, since Plaintiff granted extensions of time to October 8, two days before her hospitalization with a life-threatening condition.

The Court cannot order a party to provide verified responses to discovery at a time when she is not medically or mentally capable of doing so.

At this time, the Court will order the three motions to compel to be continued to March 26, 2025. Campbell’s counsel is directed to file a declaration with the court, no later than March 14, 2025, to inform the Court whether Campbell has been able to participate in his efforts to obtain her discovery responses and, if so, when verified responses have been or will be provided. If Campbell has not had the mental clarity and capacity to assist in the preparation and verification of discovery responses, counsel is requested to obtain a further letter from her treating physician with respect to his medical opinion about whether and when she might be in a condition to be able to do so. The Court will determine how to proceed at that time, based upon the information provided prior to the hearing.

 

The Court notes further that during the period wherein Plaintiff’s counsel was informed of Campbell’s inability to participate in her counsel’s efforts to obtain her discovery responses, Plaintiff served requests for admissions and, subsequently, a motion for deemed admissions, setting the hearing for March 5, 2025.

Conclusions

The Court will order that the hearing on the deemed admissions motion also be continued to March 26, 2025.