Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 22STCV00767, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00767    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

DONALD COOPER,

                        Plaintiff(s),

            vs.

 

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., ET AL.,

 

                        Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO: 22STCV00767

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

 

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

August 25, 2022

 

Plaintiff Don Cooper’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Defendant is clearly a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set one.  The motion to compel further, however, is premature and will be continued to a new date as set forth below.  The parties are ordered to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) as required by the Court’s Standing Order Re: PI Court Procedures, which is available on the LA Superior Court’s website, under the Personal Injury section.

 

 The hearing on the motion is continued to __________________ 1:30 p.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  Moving Party is ordered to use the online reservation management system to schedule an IDC, which must go forward per the terms set forth in the Standing Order.  The IDC must be scheduled at least two weeks prior to the continued hearing date on the motion.  

 

If the above date is not convenient for the parties and/or an IDC cannot be scheduled, for whatever reason, within the necessary time period, Moving Party must use the online reservation system to promptly continue the hearing on the motion to a date at least two weeks after the IDC.

 

The court is hopeful the hearing on the motion will not be necessary.  If the parties are unable to resolve all outstanding issues at the IDC, the parties must submit a joint statement of items in dispute at least two weeks prior to the continued hearing date.  The joint statement must be a single document, with analysis by both parties, addressing each remaining issue. 

 

Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff’s counsel reserved the instant motion to compel further as a “Motion – Other Document Production” in an attempt obtain an earlier hearing date than available on the Court’s reservation system for a motion to compel further.  Failing to properly reserve a hearing for a motion to compel further manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants.  If Plaintiff’s counsel fails again to properly reserve motions, it may result in an Order to Show Cause Re: Why Plaintiff’s counsel should not be sanctioned.

 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

 

Dated this 25th day of August 2022

 

 

 

 

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court