Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 19TRCV01050, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19TRCV01050    Hearing Date: September 21, 2022    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                          September 21, 2022

Moving Parties:                      Defendants Mark Gehley and Laura Gehley

Responding Party:                  None

Motion to Order The Law Office of Rodney W. Wickers to Release “Attorney’s Eyes Only” Case Files to Defendants for Use During Case Proceedings

            The court considered the moving papers.

RULING

            The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

On November 22, 2019, Michael Dyberg filed a complaint against Laura Gehley and Mark Gehley for (1) defamation and (2) IIED.

On March 3, 2020, the court denied defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.

On May 5, 2020, Laura Gehley filed a cross-complaint for (1) sexual battery, (2) battery and assault, (3) IIED, and (4) NIED relating to the alleged rape.

On July 24, 2020, the court overruled defendants’ demurrer to the complaint.

On March 25, 2022, the court granted defendants’ Pitchess motion.

On April 25, 2022, the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.

On May 24, 2022, defendants filed substitutions of attorney.  They are representing themselves.

On August 9, 2022, the trial was continued from August 16, 2022 to February 1, 2023.

            On August 26, 2022, the court denied defendants’ motion to submit tardy expert witness list and granted plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate trial with respect to punitive damages.

DISCUSSION

            Defendants (self-represented) request that the court order the Law Office of Rodney W. Wickers to release “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” case files connected with this proceeding.

            Defendants assert that upon becoming “self-litigants,” they were provided access to the case files on June 15, 2022 but not to the records under the protective order:  (1) Plaintiff’s produced documents DYBERG 0686 through DYBERG 0785, (2) portions of Dyberg’s deposition transcript (October 25, 2021) marked CONFIDENTIAL, (3) Exh. 8 referenced in plaintiff’s deposition, and (4) Exhibits A, B, and C filed with the court under seal.

            Defendants contend that they sent a meet and confer letter on August 10, 2022 and that on August 16, 2022, plaintiff’s counsel sent a response stating that plaintiff would not agree to a release of the information but would “allow for an inspection of the attorney’s eyes-only material at the courthouse.”

            The court notes that the motion was filed and served on September 13, 2022 for a hearing on September 21, 2022.  Defendants did not comply with the notice requirements under CCP §1005, which states that “all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. . . . However, if the notice is served by mail, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by five calendar days.”  Defendants filed and served the motion only eight days before the hearing.

            The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

            Defendants are ordered to give notice of ruling.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of ruling.