Judge Gary I. Micon, Case Number: 23CHCP00073, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCP00073, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCP00073 Hearing Date: January 18, 2024 Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 1-18-24

Case #23CHCP00073

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Sherry Goldsmith

RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants Electropath, Valentine Goelz, Mark Goelz, Roy & Val Tool Grinding, Inc., and Jan Mason

RELIEF REQUESTED

Further Responses to Defendants’ Discovery Answers

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff Sherry Goldsmith filed this shareholder derivative action against Electropath and other Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Electropath failed to hold regular meetings, created records of meetings that did not occur, and committed other wrongful acts.

As part of Plaintiff’s case against Defendants, Plaintiff has propounded discovery on Defendants. Defendants answered Plaintiff’s discovery requests. On September 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed two motions to compel further discovery responses against all Defendants, one for the form interrogatories and one for the requests for production. Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ responses on the basis that they require verification and a privilege log, and because Defendants made what Plaintiff alleges are improper objections due to Defendants’ late responses.

Defendants claim in their opposition that Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter did not include many of the alleged deficiencies. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff seeks to have Defendants change their answers to ones more favorable to Plaintiff. Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motions are procedurally deficient because Plaintiff should have filed separate motions for each Defendant for each discovery set, instead of one motion for all Defendants.

In her reply, Plaintiff reiterates her argument that Defendants’ responses are insufficient.

RULING: Parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer, followed by an Informal Discovery Conference before the Court

The only meet and confer demonstrated by the parties’ moving parties was an exchange of emails that began with Plaintiff sending an email to Defendants’ counsel indicating that Defendants’ responses were inadequate.

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 an Informal Discovery Conference. At least 10 days prior to the IDC, the parties must conduct a meaningful meet and confer to resolve as much as they can. Additionally, the parties are ordered to file a joint statement of remaining issues prior to the IDC. The joint statement should briefly describe the matters in dispute, followed by Plaintiff’s arguments, then Defendants’ arguments.

ORDER

1. The parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer at least 10 court days prior to the Informal Discovery Conference.

2. At least 3 court days prior to the Informal Discovery Conference, the parties shall submit a joint statement of the remaining issues as described above. If each Defendant wishes to make a separate joint statement with Plaintiff, that is acceptable, or all the Defendants may be included in the same joint statement. The format should be as follows: the parties should recite the specific discovery request as 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 date for the IDC will be set at the hearing on these motions.

4. Moving party to provide notice.