Motion Leave to Amend

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.January 14, 2020

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER Noah Smart vs Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Hearing Start Time; 9:00 AM Stanford et a| 20CV361798 Hearing Type: Motion: Leave to Amend Date of Hearing: 02/22/2022 Comments: Line 8 Heard By: Rudy, Christopher G Location: Department 7 Courtroom Reporter: - No Court Reporter Courtroom Clerk: Richelle Belligan Court Interpreter: Court Investigator: Parties Present: Future Hearings: Exhibits: - Plt's Responses to Def's Req for Admission by Noah Smart (Sharee Hess) The following attorney(s) appear via CourtCaII: Jeffrey S. Mitchell for: Plaintiff(s), Noah Smart Adam M. Stoddard for Defendant(s), Lucille Packard Children's Hosp and Stanford Health Care The tentative ruling is contested by Defense Attorney, Adam Stoddard The matter is argued. The Tentative Ruling is adopted. Pending notification by Defense Attorney to reset motion summary judgment/adjudication. See below. Case Name: Noah Smart vs Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford et al Case No.2 20CV361798 BACKGROU ND Before the Court is the motion of Noah Smart (Plaintiff) by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Lindsay Bowman, for an Order granting him leave to amend his responses to Defendant Lucile Packard Children s Hospital at Stanford s ( LPCH ) Requests for Admission ( RFA) Nos. 34, 83, and 95, on the grounds that they were mistakenly but reasonably admitted. The motion is opposed by LPCH. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard Printed: 2/22/2022 02/22/2022 Motion: Leave to Amend - 20CV361798 Page 1 of 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER Any matter admitted in response to a request for admission is conclusively established against the party making the admission for purposes of the pending action, unless the court permits a withdrawal or amendment of the admission under section 2033.300.( 2033.410, subd. (a).) A party may withdraw or amend an admission made in response to a request for admission only with leave of court granted after notice to all parties. ( 2033.300, subd. (a).) The court may permit withdrawal or amendment of an admission only if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits. ( 2033.300, subd. (b).) The court may impose conditions on the granting of the motion that are just, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) An order that the party who obtained the admission be permitted to pursue additional discovery related to the matter involved in the withdrawn or amended admission. (2) An order that the costs of any additional discovery be borne in whole or in part by the party withdrawing or amending the admission. ( 2033.300, subd. (c).) [T]he trial court's discretion to deny a motion for relief under based on the failure to establish excusable neglect is limited to circumstances where inexcusable neglect is clear: Where, the trial court denies the motion for relief from default, the strong policy in favor of trial on the merits conflicts with the general rule of deference to the trial court's exercise of discretion. [Citation.] Unless inexcusable neglect is clear, the policy favoring trial on the merits prevails. [Citation.] Doubts are resolved in favor of the application for relief from default [citation], and reversal of an order denying relief results [citation]. Reversal is particularly appropriate where relieving the default will not seriously prejudice the opposing party. [Citations.] (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1419-1420 citing (Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227) (italics in the original) B. Analysis Plaintiff seeks relief from admissions to RFA Nos. 34, 83 and 95: RFA No. 34 states: Admit that on January 13, 2016, Dr. Samuel H. Cheshier discussed the risks of your planned February 5, 2016 surgery with your parents. Plaintiff admitted RFA No. 34 without qualification. Plaintiff seeks to amend his response to RFA No. 34 to read: Plaintiff admits that on January 13, 2016, Dr. Samuel H. Cheshier discussed some but not all of the risks of the planned February 5, 2016 surgery. Printed: 2/22/2022 02/22/2022 Motion: Leave to Amend - 20CV361798 Page 2 of 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER RFA No. 83 states: Admit that as of November 16, 2015, Plaintiff had mild to moderate trigonocephaly. Plaintiff admitted RFA No. 83 without qualification. Plaintiff seeks to amend his response to RFA No. 83 to: Plaintiff admits Defendant s doctors stated in Plaintiff s medical records that as of November 16, 2015, Plaintiff had mild to moderate trigonocephaly; however, Plaintiff denies that this was, in fact, true. RFA No. 95 states: Admit that as of December 9, 2015, Plaintiff was at increased risk of intracranial pressure due to trigonocephaly. Plaintiff admitted RFA No. 95 without qualification. Plaintiff seeks to amend his response to RFA No. 95 to: Plaintiff admits Defendant s doctors stated in Plaintiff s medical records that as of December 9, 2015, Plaintiff was at increased risk of intracranial pressure due to trigonocephaly; however, Plaintiff denies that this was, in fact, true. The essence of Plaintiff s request for relief is that in admitting RFA Nos, 34, 83 and 95, Plaintiff reasonably relied on what his doctors wrote in the medical records and what they told his parents. Plaintiff contends that through discovery and consultation with his own experts, he has discovered that what was written in the medical records and told to his parents was not true. As such his admissions were reasonable at the time, but wrong based on what he knows now. LPCH strongly denies that Plaintiff s records are incorrect or that Plaintiff s parents were not fully informed. LPCG objects that Plaintiff fails to establish that his responses were the result of a mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. LPH also objects that even if those factors were established by Plaintiff, the prejudice it will suffer is such that the relief should be denied. The Court finds that Plaintiff has established that his previous responses to the RFA s were in error and that they were based on a mistaken reliance on what was contained in his medical records and what he claims was (or was not) told to his parents by his doctors. The Court finds that, having conducted additional discovery, consulted with an expert and determined that, at least in his expert s opinion, what was admitted was in fact not true, the ends ofjustice require that he should be permitted to amend or supplement his responses. The Court understands LPCH s argument regarding prejudice. However, it appears that the most compelling prejudice is that LPCH believed it would prevail on its Motion for Summary Judgement and or Summary Adjudication of Issues (MSJ/MSA) based on Plaintiff s original RFA responses. In the Court s view, that is not the sort of prejudice that would justify granting relief. If there was some proof that that, in reliance on Plaintiff s RFA responses, crucial evidence was no longer available to LPCH so that a complete defense cannot be maintained, the result might be different. It is regrettable that this motion is being heard so close to the pending MSJ/MSA and trial. However, the MSJ/MSA was filed after the Plaintiff s motion for relief was filed. LPCH has known for many months that Printed: 2/22/2022 02/22/2022 Motion: Leave to Amend - 20CV361798 Page 3 of 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER Plaintiff was asking for relief from RFA s that were part of the evidence LPCH hoped to rely on. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that but for LPCH s objections, this motion might have been heard months ago and before LPCH filed its MSJ/MSA. The Court believes that if relief is granted, it is appropriate that any additional costs associated with the granting of relief should be borne by Plaintiff. Good Cause Appearing the Motion is GRANTED on the following conditions. To the extent any of Plaintiff s changes in his responses to the RFA s necessitate supplemental depositions, Plaintiff shall be responsible for making his witnesses available for those depositions. Additionally, the costs of taking and reporting any supplemental depositions and any witness fees associated with those depositions shall be borne by Plaintiff. The Court will prepare the formal order. Printed: 2/22/2022 02/22/2022 Motion: Leave to Amend - 20CV361798 Page 4 of 4