Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 21STCV41026, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV41026 Hearing Date: May 2, 2024 Dept: F43
Dept.
F-43
Date:
5-2-24; 5-3-24
Case
#21STCV41026, Kimberly Gallegos, et al. vs. Consolidated Disposal Service,
LLC, et al.
Trial
Date: 4-22-24
MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
MOVING
PARTY: Plaintiff Kimberly Gallegos
RESPONDING
PARTY: Defendant Consolidated Disposal Service, LLC
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Defendant’s
Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories and Plaintiff’s
Requests for Production of Documents
RULING:
Parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer
SUMMARY
OF ACTION AND ANALYSIS
On November 8, 2021, Plaintiff Kimberly Gallegos (Plaintiff)
filed this wrongful death case against Defendant Consolidated Disposal Service,
LLC (Defendant).
Plaintiff
propounded discovery on Defendant, including special interrogatories and
requests for production of documents. Defendant served responses to Plaintiff’s
special interrogatories and requests for production. A series of disputes
regarding whether the responses should be supplemented occurred over the course
of the next several months. The most recent supplemental responses were served
on March 7, 2024. Plaintiff indicates that these supplemental responses were
still inadequate. On April 1, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel spoke with Defendant’s
counsel, and the parties agreed to meet and confer on April 4, 2024. Defense
counsel did not appear for that meeting. Plaintiff filed these motions to
compel further discovery responses that same day.
The
interrogatories at issue are Special Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9,10, 20,
24, 32, 35, 39, 40, 41, and 43. The requests for production at issue are
Requests Nos. 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 27, and 28. Plaintiff
argues that Defendant’s responses to these discovery requests are vague,
ambiguous, overbroad, and burdensome. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant’s
reliance on its own relevant scope of information is improper.
On
April 22, 2024, Defendant filed its oppositions to Plaintiff’s motions.
Defendant indicates in its oppositions that the parties met and conferred on
April 12, 2024. Defendant also sent some supplemental responses to Plaintiff on
April 24. In Plaintiff’s replies, Plaintiff argues that these supplemental
responses are still not sufficient.
There
is a dispute between the parties over the sufficiency of the meet and confer. The
meet and confer concerning the discovery requests in these motions was not held
until after Plaintiff filed these motions. Since then, Defendant has
supplemented some of its answers. A clearer picture of the remaining issues is
needed.
The
Court has reviewed the documents related to these motions and will not decide
the motions on the merits at this time. The Court orders the parties to meet
and confer directly, not by email. Additionally, the parties are ordered to
file a joint statement of remaining issues by a date to be set by the Court.
The joint statement should briefly describe the matters in dispute, followed by
Plaintiff’s arguments, then Defendant’s arguments.
ORDER
1.
The parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer.
2.
The parties shall submit a joint statement of the remaining issues as described
above within 30 days. The format should be as follows: the parties should recite
the specific discovery request at issue, followed by the moving party’s
statement of why it should be compelled, followed by the opposing party’s
statement of why it should not be compelled. To the extent that an argument is
repeated for a subsequent request, the party shall simply refer to the section
where the argument was previously made.
3.
The dates for the status report and continued hearings will be set at the hearing
on this motion.
4.
Moving party to provide notice.