Cain v. Sansum Clinic CA2/6

Filed 4/23/15 Cain v. Sansum Clinic CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

RICHARD L. CAIN, 2d Civil No. B257463 (Super. Ct. No. 1402957) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

SANSUM CLINIC et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff, in propria persona, brought an action against two hospitals alleging they caused biomedical devices to be implanted in his body. After the trial court imposed discovery sanctions on plaintiff, the hospitals moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the hospitals' motion. We affirm the ensuing judgment. FACTS Richard L. Cain sued 34 health care providers for injuries resulting from the alleged secret and unconsented implantation into his body of what he describes as "experimental radiofrequency controlled and powered millimeter and other sized biomedical devices, which are comprised of Nanotechnology." He claims the devices receive and transmit radio signals, and cause him insomnia and other physical ailments. Among the defendants are the Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital and the Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital (hereinafter collectively "Hospital").

Cain appeared and answered questions at one deposition. Thereafter, he repeatedly failed to comply with the defendants' discovery demands. Cain's failure to comply included numerous failures to appear for a second deposition. Defendants moved for discovery sanctions including termination and the exclusion of evidence. The Hospital joined in the motion. Cain did not appear or otherwise respond to the motion. The court found: "The motions before the court are interrelated, and indicative of a persistent problem in this litigation, i.e., plaintiff's continuing failure to timely engage in and respond to legitimate discovery sought by the many defendants he has forced into this litigation. While the Court is aware of the challenges involved in prosecuting a case in pro per, and while the Court has at every juncture attempted to give plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and advise him of the requirements and obligations that are necessary parts of being allowed to pursue litigation, the lessons do not seem to have taken hold. Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to respond to authorized discovery as required by the Civil Discovery Act (CCP § 2016.010, et seq.), forcing defendants to seek this court's assistance by moving to compel him to provide responses. The Court long ago lost track of how many times it has had to order plaintiff to provide responses to discovery. The Court has reached the limit of its tolerance of plaintiff's repeated failures to comply with his discovery obligations. After instructing plaintiff on so many occasions with respect to his discovery obligations, the Court can only conclude that any further failures to participate in discovery are willful and deliberate, and do not result from any lack of understanding of the process." The court did not grant termination or evidentiary sanctions. Instead, the court ordered the parties to meet and agree on a date for Cain's second deposition. Cain met with the defendants and agreed to be deposed on February 7, 2014. The court so ordered. Cain did not appear. The Hospital made an ex parte motion for further ruling on discovery sanctions. Cain did not oppose the motion. The court ordered that Cain is precluded