Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 19STCV23749, Date: 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV23749    Hearing Date: September 7, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULINGS

MOTION

Plaintiff Lori Hoeft (“Plaintiff”) previously moved the Court for an order compelling Defendant E&S Management Ring Corp. (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One), Demand for Production of Documents (Set One), and Request for Production (Set Two) Nos. 61, 62, 64, and 65.

On June 27, 2023, Defendant filed a consolidated opposition regarding the document requests.  Plaintiff filed a reply on June 28, 2023. An information discovery conference (“IDC”) was taken off-calendar due to Plaintiff’s failure to file an IDC statement.  (Minute Order Dated June 29, 2023.) 

On July 26, 2023, Defendant filed a second consolidated opposition stating that it had provided sufficient responses, including the requested documents, and that an understanding would be reached at the IDC that the requests had been complied with and the motions should be considered resolved.  Defendant’s opposition indicated that the difficulty of meeting and conferring arose from the frequent change of Plaintiff’s counsel.  (July 26, 2023 Opposition at pg. 1.) A second IDC was scheduled for August 1, 2023, but Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear.  (Minute Order Dated August 1, 2023.)  Later that day, a substitution of attorney was filed and a pending motion of counsel to be relieved was taken off-calendar.  (See Minute Order dated August 2, 2023.)

On August 8, 2023, the Court continued the motions so that Plaintiff could timely schedule, notice, and properly appear for an IDC in order to have the motions heard.

To date, Plaintiff still has not done so.

ANALYSIS

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: ¶ (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. ¶ (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. ¶ (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) 

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: ¶ (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. ¶ (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. ¶ (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)  “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) 

            The Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub require that the parties engage in an Informal Discovery Conference.  (See S.O. 8 at ¶ 9E. (“PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.”)

            An IDC is particularly important here, where it appears that additional responses have been served since the initial filing of the motions to compel further discovery.  Accordingly, it is unclear to the Court which disputes remain.  

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the motions to compel further discovery responses are denied.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.