Cathy Diane Warren et al vs Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital et al

Case Number

24CV01568

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 01/24/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Four Motions to Compel

Tentative Ruling

For all of the reasons discussed herein, Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital’s motions to compel further responses are all granted. Plaintiffs shall provide further, code-compliant, verified responses, without objections except as to privilege, no later than February 7, 2025. No sanctions are awarded in favor of or against any party.

Background:

This action commenced on March 18, 2024, by the filing of the original complaint by plaintiffs Cathy Diane Warren (“Warren”) and Kevin Carrol (“Carrol”) (collectively “plaintiffs”) against defendants Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital (“SBCH”), Jeremy W. Lash, M.D., Eric M. Suess, M.D., Sam Ahmad, M.D., Katherine Stiene, M.D., Guy W. Tarleton, M.D., Patrick T. Glynn, M.D., John G. Elder, M.D., Michael A. Trambert, M.D., Shiva Shabnam, M.D., and Benton T. Ashlock, M.D., for survivor action and wrongful death.

On August 19, 2024, plaintiffs filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) against the same defendants. The FAC is also for survivor action and wrongful death.

Plaintiffs are the successors in interest to decedent Kenneth L. Carroll (“decedent”). (FAC, ¶¶ 1, 2.)

This action is based on allegations of the defendants withholding information about Remdesivir from decedent and concealing information about safe and effective alternative treatments. (FAC, ¶ 22, 80-.) Defendants also made affirmative false representations about Remdesivir, and concealed information regarding financial incentives. (Ibid.)

All defendants, with the exception of Eric M. Suess, M.D. have made appearances by answer or demurrer.

On June 17, 2024, SBCH served plaintiffs with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents. On August 30, 2024, plaintiffs served responses.

According to counsel for SBCH, a meet and confer letter was sent to plaintiffs’ counsel on October 1, 2024, to which no response was received.

SBCH now moves to compel further responses as follows: (1) Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.5, 2.6, 2.11, 6.4, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 9.1, 9.2, 10.2, 12.4, and 12.6, from Carrol; (2) Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.5, 2.7, 2.11, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 9.1, 9.2, and 12.4 from Warren; (3) Special Interrogatories Nos. 17 - 25, 39, and 40 from Warren; and (4) Requests for Production of Documents No. 1 from Carrol.

On January 13, 2025, plaintiffs filed non-oppositions to the motions but oppose sanctions. Plaintiffs represent, by way of their counsel, that they anticipate providing supplemental responses by January 17, 2025. The court is unaware of whether the supplemental responses were provided, as no party notified the court.

Analysis:

As the motions to compel are unopposed, they will be granted. The remaining issue is whether sanctions should be awarded in favor of SBCH.

SBCH seeks monetary sanctions for each of their motions against plaintiffs.

The court “shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to [or requests for production of documents, or interrogatories], 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.300; 2030.300, subd. (d).)

“Misuses of the discovery process include . . .(d) failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery, (e) making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery, (f) making an evasive response to discovery . . . (h) making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery, (i) failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made.” (Code Civ. Proc., 2023.010, subds. (d), (e), (f), (h), & (i).)

Plaintiffs’ counsel has submitted declarations with each of the non-oppositions. By way of the declarations, plaintiffs’ counsel, Daniel R. Watkins, declares:

“1. I am an attorney duly licensed before all courts in the state of California and am a partner with Watkins & Letofsky, LLP, counsel for Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter.

“2. If called to testify, I could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein as to my own personal knowledge unless otherwise stated to be based on information and belief, and as to those things, I believe them to be true.

“3. On or around October 11, 2024, I became aware that Defendants had filed a motion to compel further discovery responses in the above-captioned matter.

“4. Included within Defendants’ motions to compel and requests for sanctions is their October 1, 2024, meet and confer letter.

“5. Ms. Megan Lane stated in her declaration attached to the motion to compel that she authored and sent the October 1, 2024, meet and confer letter.

“6. The October 1, 2024, meet and confer letter is signed by Ms. Lane.

“7. However, the October 1, 2024, meet and confer letter states that it is authored by ‘myarvis@fwcllp.com’, presumably Matthew Yarvis.

“8. Upon receipt of the motions to compel, I performed a thorough search of my inbox, deleted emails, and case folder for the date of October 1, 2024. I could not find any emails from Matthew Yarvis or Megan Lane with any attachments containing the meet and confer letter.

“9. To my knowledge, no further attempt to meet and confer was made following the October 1, 2024, letter, which was followed by the filing of the motion to compel.

“10. Plaintiffs have been and remain willing to produce responses to the requested discovery. This is a complicated matter. Defendant’s requests are very broad requiring an in depth search of documents that are not easily accessible. Plaintiffs expect to serve the supplemental responses no later than January 17, 2025.”

The court accepts plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration and finds that circumstances would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. None will be awarded.