Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STCV47403, Date: 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV47403 Hearing Date: August 8, 2023 Dept: 14
(1) Motion
to Compel Compliance
Plaintiff now moves this court for
an order compelling Defendant Honda to comply with this court’s order issued on
February 6, 2023. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,360.00.
Decision
The motion is DENIED as MOOT. The request
for sanctions is also DENIED.
Discussion
On February
6, 2023, this court ruled on Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to
her Request for Production of Documents, Set No. Two. The motion was granted,
in part. There was no deadline imposed for service of the further responses.
Defendant Honda served further responses on April 24, 2023. (Declaration of
Richard Stuhlbarg Exhibit F). Production of actual documents in compliance with
the responses began soon after.
This court
ordered further responses. Those further responses have been made. If Plaintiff
still has a problem with the new responses, her remedy is to first meet and
confer in a live, not a written format, then request an IDC with this
court. Only after following those steps will a motion become appropriate.
Sanctions
are not appropriate here. There was no deadline imposed in the court’s prior
order, and it is undisputed that Defense counsel communicated with Plaintiff to
explain the delay in production.
Conclusion
The court
ordered Defendant Honda to serve further responses. Defendant Honda has done
so. The sufficiency of those responses is a matter for further discussion and
perhaps an IDC. This motion is MOOT. It is therefore DENIED. The request for
sanctions is also DENIED.
(2) Motion to
Compel PMK Deposition
Plaintiff
now moves this court, per Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450, for an order
compelling Defendant Honda to produce its Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) on
certain topics. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,635.00.
Decision
The motion
is TAKEN OFF-CALENDAR as it was filed in violation of a court order. Counsel
are directed to first review the court orders of April 5, 2022, then meet and
confer by telephone to discuss their remaining disputes. If any disputes
survive that meeting, the parties are directed to call Department 14 to
schedule an Informal Discovery Conference.
Discussion
On April 5,
2022, this court issued an order governing discovery in this case. Note 3 of
that order directs the parties follow the process laid out in the Minute Order of
April 5, 2022 before bringing any discovery motion related to certain
substantive topics. The Minute Order of April 5, 2022, directs the parties to “first
meet and confer either in person or by video conference” and thereafter to
schedule an Informal Discovery Conference.
This motion
was filed on October 12, 2022. The Declaration of Timothy Lupinek indicates that
the motion satisfied neither of the pre-conditions established by the Orders of
April 5, 2022. Nevertheless, the court held an IDC on the issue on December 9,
2022.
The parties
were later able to reach an agreement on 44 of the 79 categories contained in
the PMK notice. That PMK witness was produced on May 12, 2023.
The moving papers here are both stale and
voluminous. They do not reflect any of the conversations and negotiations which
have taken place over the past 10 months, nor do they reflect compliance with
the court’s orders of April 5, 2022. Even if only 35 categories remain at
issue, the separate statement filed with this motion is 595 pages long. The
court is unwilling to sit and sift through almost 600 pages to evaluate 35
requests which counsel may or may not ever have actually discussed between
themselves.
Conclusion