Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV13645, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13645    Hearing Date: January 26, 2024    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.  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 RULING

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Kenneth Washington, Kimberly Hagen, and Marley Washington (“Plaintiffs”) move to compel further responses from Defendant City of Hawthorne (“Defendant”) to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiffs also seek monetary sanctions. Defendant opposes and Plaintiffs reply.

ANALYSIS

The Court’s Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub requires counsel to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) before the Court will hear any motion to compel further responses to discovery. In their reply, Plaintiffs state that they scheduled an IDC for January 8, 2024 but never communicated the date to Defendant’s counsel due to a clerical error. (Reply, 2.) There is no indication that Plaintiffs filed an IDC statement with the Court. Though Plaintiffs argue the Order is not a basis to deny this motion, the Eighth Amended Standing Order states: “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.” (Eighth Amend. Standing Order, ¶ 9E.)

Plaintiffs request the Court to instead continue the instant motions so an IDC can be held. (Reply, 3.) A motion to compel further responses of interrogatories and admissions requires a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2033.290(b)(1).) Section 2016.040 states: “[a] meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” Here, the Declaration of Loyst P. Fletcher states that on October 23, 2023, he sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant. (Fletcher Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 3.) Defendant served amended responses on November 17, 2023, which Plaintiff argues were still deficient. (Id. ¶ 6–7.) No further efforts were made to meet and confer.

The Court therefore denies the motion as procedurally defective. Accordingly, the Court also denies Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies the motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and denies the requests for sanctions.

Plaintiffs are ordered to provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.