Judge: Erick L. Larsh, Case: 2021-01230129, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Defendant City of Santa Ana’s four motions to compel further responses to its first sets of special interrogatories and first sets of requests for production from plaintiffs Sana Ana Police Officers Association and Gerry Serrano are all CONTINUED TO October 19, 2023, 9:00 a.m. so the court may hear from the parties on whether to appoint a discovery referee.

The court sets an OSC re: discovery referee for 9-15-2023, 1:30 p.m., in this department. The parties are invited to serve and file briefs of 5 pages or less on the appropriateness of a discovery referee no later than nine court days prior to the hearing. The briefs shall include recommendations on who the court should appoint, even if the party contends no referee is necessary. If the parties reach a stipulation as to appointment of a discovery referee, such can be filed in lieu of the briefing ordered above.

Unless a party shows good cause otherwise, the court will appoint a discovery referee to hear the pending discovery motions and determine all future discovery disputes in this case. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 639 et seq.; see also Taggares v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 94, 105 [factors].)

There are presently six discovery motions pending on calendar, and the four that were initially scheduled for this date literally consist of thousands of pages and seek further responses to hundreds of discovery requests. The separate statements alone total well over 1,350 pages. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contentions, they are not untimely (see ROA Nos. 356, 365, 385, 389–Kang Decls. at Ex. D [attached proofs of service]; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.00, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c) [deadline]; see also id., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B)); and an initial review of the discovery motions on calendar indicates they will require exhaustive and time-consuming analysis and place an inordinate burden on the court’s resources. These discovery motions also concern only some of the initial sets of discovery in a factually dense case that has proven to be extremely contentious and will likely require additional discovery as litigation continues, and it appears quite obvious that further discovery disputes will be forthcoming. The moving papers, as well as the history of this litigation, further reveal that fundamental differences exist between the parties that permeate these (and will likely permeate all future) discovery disputes, and that the antagonism between the parties (and their counsel as well) will likely prolong the proceedings and frustrate discovery in the absence of a discovery referee.

The deep divide between the parties concerning discovery suggests this case will benefit from the dedicated attention of a discovery referee.   

Clerk to give notice.