Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 19STCV34805, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling,
please email the clerk at SMCdept26@lacourt.org (and “cc” all
other parties in the same email) no later than 7:30 am on
the day of the hearing, and please notify all other parties in advance that you
will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the
subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and
the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the
tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may
nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the Court may
decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.
2.
For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in
advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to
either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its
discretion.
3. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS
EMAIL (SMCdept26@lacourt.org) FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE
RULING. The Court will not read or
respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
4. IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT
PHYSICAL DISTANCING GOING FORWARD AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY
ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY FOR NON-TRIAL
AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS. Thus, until further
notice, Department 26 strongly encourages telephonic appearances for motion
hearings that do not require the presentation of live testimony.
Case Number: 19STCV34805 Hearing Date: May 11, 2023 Dept: 26
19STCV34805
On May 11, 2023, Counsel for all parties participated in an
informal discovery conference with the Court, at the conclusion of which Plaintiff
and Saputo Cheese agreed as follows:
(1)
No later than May 19, 2023, Saputo will voluntarily
supplement its response to Requests for Admissions 51, 52, 55, 60, 64, and 65
by indicating words to the effect that : “Other than a report by Katherine
Edwards dated 1/31/20, the truth or falsity of which is unknown, Saputo has no
knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny Requests for Admissions (51,
52, 55, 60, 64, and 65). A reasonable inquiry
concerning this matter has been made, and the only information known or readily
obtainable concerning this matter is the hearsay evidence referred to above.” Plaintiff would be satisfied with such a
response and would not move to compel a further response.
(2)
No later than May 19, 2023, Saputo will voluntarily
supplement its response to Form interrogatory No. 17.1 corresponding to Requests
for Admissions 51, 52, 55, 60, 64, and 65 by indicating words to the effect
that : “A report by Katherine Edwards dated 1/31/20 indicates that . . . . However, after a reasonable inquiry, Saputo
does not have first hand knowledge enabling it to admit or deny this RFA.” Plaintiff would be satisfied with such a
response and would not move to compel a further response.
(3)
Plaintiff withdraws RFA 57 and will propound new RFAs
(approximately two new RFAs) identifying the content of each compliment, e.g., “Admit
that Defendant DURON’s compliment to Plaintiff regarding her braces looking
good on her was unnecessary and unrelated to Duron and Plaintiff’s carrying out
their job functions” and “Admit that Defendant DURON’s compliment to Plaintiff regarding
her eyes being pretty was unnecessary and unrelated to Duron and Plaintiff’s
carrying out their job functions.” Within
30 days, Defendant Saputo will respond to these new modified RFAs without objection
though Saputo’s response may track the language of “Other than Plaintiff’s
deposition testimony and. . . , the truth or falsity of which is unknown,
Saputo has no knowledge or information regarding Duron made such a compliment
to Plaintiff at all. However, assuming that
such a compliment occurred, Defendant admits/denies.”
(4)
Plaintiff withdraws RFA 58 and will propound new RFAs
(approximately two new RFAs) identifying the content of each compliment, e.g., “Admit
that Plaintiff did not consent to Defendant DURON’s compliments to her
regarding her braces looking good on her” and “Admit that Plaintiff did not
consent to Defendant DURON’s compliments to her regarding her eyes being pretty”
Within 30 days, Defendant Saputo will respond
to these new modified RFAs without objection though Saputo’s response may track
the language of “Other than Plaintiff’s deposition testimony and. . . , the
truth or falsity of which is unknown, Saputo has no knowledge or information
sufficient to admit or deny Request for Admissions 58. A reasonable inquiry concerning this matter
has been made, and the only information known or readily obtainable concerning
this matter is the hearsay evidence referred to above.”
(5)
Plaintiff withdraws RFA 66 and will propound new RFAs
(approximately three new RFAs) identifying the incident of each touching by
approximate date, e.g., “Admit that Plaintiff did not consent to Defendant
DURON hugging her from behind in April 2017,” “Admit that Plaintiff did not
consent to Defendant DURON touching her with his penis or groin in April 2017” and
“Admit that Plaintiff did not consent to Defendant DURON touching her buttocks in
September 2017” Within 30 days, Defendant
Saputo will respond to these three new modified RFAs without objection though Saputo’s
response may track the language of “Other than Plaintiff’s deposition testimony
and. . . , the truth or falsity of which is unknown, Saputo has no knowledge or
information sufficient to admit or deny Request for Admissions 58. A reasonable inquiry concerning this matter
has been made, and the only information known or readily obtainable concerning
this matter is the hearsay evidence referred to above.”
The parties entered into these stipulations in open Court. Prior to finalizing this minute order, the
Court posted this minute order on the Court’s online tentative ruling website,
and all Counsel agreed to the accuracy of this minute order in reflecting the
parties’ stipulations.
If the parties fully resolve all pending discovery issues
relating to the pending motions to compel further, the moving party must
promptly take any pending motion off-calendar via the Court Reservation System
(“CRS”) and cancel all CRS reservations.
For any motion to compel further in this action that has
been filed or will be filed in the future, the responding party’s voluntary
service of supplemental responses prior to the hearing will moot all issues for
the motion except for sanctions. The
parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding sanctions and to file a joint
statement within 5 days of the service of supplemental responses; the joint
statement must advise that supplemental responses have been served and advise whether
the parties have been able to resolve the sole remaining issue of sanctions. In order to demonstrate that supplemental
responses have been served thereby mooting a pending motion to compel further,
the responding party must also file and serve a copy of the verified
supplemental responses no later than when the opposition is due. If the moving party deems that the
supplemental responses remain deficient and/or non-code compliant, the moving party
must timely (within 45 days of service of the supplemental responses) file and
serve a new motion to compel further complying with all statutory requirements,
including a meet and confer regarding the supplemental responses and a separate
statement that includes all responses (original and supplemental). The moving party may contact Department 26 to
request a further informal discovery conference to discuss the remaining
disputes following the service of supplemental responses. The parties are ordered to file a joint
statement of items remaining in dispute no later than 5 days before the further
IDC.
The Court Clerk shall give electronic notice to Plaintiff and
Saputo Cheese.
Plaintiff shall file proof of service of this order on all
other parties.