Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents; Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Admitted
Melvin De La Cruz v. Inpatient Services of California, 22CV-0667
Hearing: Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Admitted
Date: June 10, 2026
Melvin De La Cruz (Plaintiff) is a physician who filed this action against Tenet Healthcare Corporation, and its formerly affiliated hospitals, Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center, and Twin Cities Community Hospital (collectively Tenet), Inpatient Services of California, Australian Salmon Inpatient Services, and Envision Physician Services, LLC, alleging wrongful termination of his employment and of staff privileges at two hospitals.
On January 22, 2026, Tenet served on Plaintiff (1) Notice of Plaintiff’s Deposition; (2) Requests for Production of Documents (RFPs); (3) Requests for Admissions (RFAs); (4) Form Interrogatories; and (5) Special Interrogatories. (Boniadi Dec., ¶ 2.) 1
Now before the Court is Tenet’s motion to compel responses to discovery and for sanctions in the amount of $6,280.00.
Plaintiff’s responses were due February 24, 2026, but Plaintiff has not provided responses. (Boniadi Dec., ¶ 2.) Counsel for Plaintiff (Michael Khouri) contacted Tenet’s counsel on February 25, 2026, because Mr. Khouri had received an email from a court reporting agency regarding a deposition scheduled for the following day. (Id., ¶ 5.) Mr. Khouri informed Tenet’s counsel that he did not have the deposition on calendar and that it could not proceed. (Ibid.) After Tenet’s counsel had recirculated the Notice of Deposition previously served, Mr.
Khouri stated that he could not open it and that he had not received it. (Boniadi Dec., ¶¶ 5,6.) It was then that Tenet’s counsel learned that Mr. Khouri preferred receiving email at this service email address. (Id. ¶ 6.) On March 3, 2026, Tenet’s counsel followed up by email regarding the status of the responses. (Id. ¶ 7.) The letter was sent by email to Mr. Khouri’s personal email address as well as his service email address. (Ibid., Ex. B.)
Still receiving no response, on March 16, 2026, Tenet’s counsel followed up a second time. (Boniadi Dec., ¶ 9.) Mr. Khouri stated that he does not read emails sent to his personal email account by unknown senders. (Id., ¶ 9.) As a result, if a staff member attempted to serve discovery documents to him this way, he did not see them. (Ibid.) Tenet’s counsel responded that the letter was sent to the service email but that no response had been received. (Id., ¶ 10.) Mr. Khouri replied that he would look into the matter, mentioning his assistant was away for a week due to a death in the family. (Id., ¶ 11.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
On March 27, 2026, Tenet’s counsel sent a final follow up email, to which Mr. Khouri responded that the discovery documents had been misplaced and stated that he would address the matter the following week. (Boniadi Dec., ¶¶ 12, 13, Ex. D.) At the time of filing this motion (April 10, 2026), no responses had been received.
1 Tenet’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is on calendar for August 12, 2026.
On May 29, 2026, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. 2 The opposition states discovery responses will be submitted by the hearing date, and the Court should deny the motion once it is confirmed that responses were provided. Mr. Khouri explains “[t]he discovery in this matter was late because it was never received.” (Khouri Dec., ¶ 2.)
All that need be shown for purposes of a motion to compel initial responses is that the discovery was properly served; that the time to respond has expired; and that no response of any kind has been served. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2025) ¶ 8:1140; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (b) [RFPs].) Tenet has made that showing here. The Court intends to grant the motion to compel discovery, unless the Plaintiff serves the required responses by the date of the hearing.
With respect to a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 subdivision (b) for an order deeming the RFAs admitted, “[t]he court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Absent confirmation that substantially compliant responses have been served prior to the hearing, the motion to deem the RFAs admitted, will be granted.
Finally, Tenet seeks sanctions of $6,280.00 against Plaintiff and his counsel. However, Tenet does not support its fees or expenses in any way, i.e., how the amount was calculated or the hourly rate and number of hours expended. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040 [request for sanctions must be supported “by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”].)
The Court continues Tenet’s request for sanctions to August 12, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 4. Counsel for Tenet is ordered to file and serve an updated declaration in support of the requested sanctions on or before July 22, 2026.
2 Tenet objects to this Court considering Plaintiff’s untimely opposition, which was filed one day late. Because Tenet has not shown that it was prejudiced by the late filing, the Court will consider the late-filed opposition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300 [court has discretion not to consider a late filed paper].)
2