Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 19STCV37406, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV37406    Hearing Date: October 20, 2022    Dept: 200

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 200

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Jason Grangier

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Jane Doe

BACKGROUND

            This is an action for sexual assault and battery.  Plaintiff Jane Doe alleges Defendant Jason Grangier followed her home from a restaurant and raped her.  Compl. ¶¶ 6-13.  The Complaint alleges seven causes of action for (1) assault, (2) battery, (3) sexual battery, (4) denial of civil rights, (5) gender violence, (6) false imprisonment and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

DISCUSSION

            On October 28, 2020, this Court issued an Order appointing a Discovery Referee “for all discovery purposes in this action pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code section 639(a).”  Defendant now moves to disqualify that referee, arguing the referee has acted with partiality in favor of Plaintiff and has shown bias against Defendant.  Specifically, Defendant claims the referee has (1) failed to compel Plaintiff to respond to discovery, (2) failed to sanction Plaintiff for obstructing discovery, (3) sanctioned Defendant without notice and opportunity to be heard, (4) imposed “arbitrary and capricious limitations” on Defendant’s forensic psychological examination of Plaintiff, and (5) yelled at defense counsel during discovery conferences.    Plaintiff has not filed a substantive opposition to the motion, instead arguing Defendant did not serve the motion in compliance with the time limits set out in CCP §§1005(b) and 1010.6(a)(4).  As the hearing on the motion was continued to October 20, 2022, Plaintiff now has sufficient time to respond substantively to the arguments raised in Defendant’s motion to disqualify.  Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiff to file a substantive opposition by October 28, 2022, unless Plaintiff does not oppose the motion on its merits.  The Court will continue the hearing on Defendant’s motion to disqualify discovery referee to November 4, 2022.

            Defendant has also filed two other discovery motions: (1) a motion for a forensic psychological examination and (2) a motion to compel further responses to document requests coupled with a motion for monetary and issue sanctions.  Both discovery motions will be continued to a date after the hearing on Defendant’s motion to disqualify, to November 17, 2022. 

            The parties are reminded of their obligations to meet and confer.  “The Discovery Act requires that…the moving party declare that he or she has made a serious attempt to obtain an informal resolution of each issue.”  (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016 (internal quotations and citations omitted).)  This rule is designed “to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order....”  (McElhaney v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 285, 289.)  “This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.”  (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.)  Here, defense counsel filed Defendant’s motion to compel further responses and for monetary and issue sanctions on the same day he sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff, allowing no opportunity to meaningfully meet and confer.  Ferlauto Decl. ¶¶8, 9; Ex. 4 to Weberman Decl.

            Further, in the event the Court decides to resolve Defendant’s motion to compel further responses, the Court refers the parties to this Department’s rules (available online) which require that for a motion to compel further responses, the parties file a “JOINT STATEMENT consisting of a four-column document set up as follows: The first column will identify the number of the discovery responses; the second, the text of the discovery request; the third, the text of the response, and the fourth, brief bullet-point statements, one from each party, as to why a further response should or should not be compelled.” 

            Finally, the Court vacates the current October 31, trial date and October 20, 2022 final status conference.  The court sets a trial setting hearing for November 4, 2022.

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, the Court continues the hearing on the motion to disqualify the discovery referee to November 4, 2022, and sets a trial setting hearing for that same date.  Plaintiff shall file a substantive opposition to the motion to disqualify by October 28, 2022, unless Plaintiff does not oppose the motion on its merits.  The Court continues the hearing on the motions for forensic psychological examination, to compel further responses to document requests, and for issue and monetary sanctions to November 17, 2022. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 20, 2022                                        ___________________________

                                                                                    Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court