Judge Jill Feeney, Case Number: 19STCV18737, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

On March 7, 2024, Cross-Complainant Domus Design Group, LLC (Domus) filed a motion for an order entering a stipulation to revise the cutoff dates listed in the May 30, 2023 joint status conference report which were then incorporated into a court order on June 6, 2023.

On March 15, 2024, Defendants Onni Contracting (California), Inc., Onni Real Estate IX, LLC, Onni South Hill Limited Partnership, Onni Manhattan Beach Realty, LLC, Manhattan Beach Holdings, ULC, Suretec Insurance Company, and Suretec Insurance Company (Onni Defendants) filed an opposition.

The status report states that depositions of Onni’s witnesses was to take place by September 2023. The deadline to serve further requests for written discovery as needed after depositions was November 3, 2023.

Domus alleges that Domus, Geodis USA, Inc., The Bee Construction, and Espinosa Interior Solutions, Inc. stipulated to adjust the dates set forth in the May 30, 2023 joint conference report. Domus’s counsel alleges that the Onni Defendants have refused to produce requested discovery documents and responded to discovery requests with boilerplate objections. (Blain Decl., ¶2.) The Onni Defendants refused to produce a single discovery document requested by Domus since May 2023. (Id., ¶5.) Domus’s counsel also alleges that the joint status conference report did not establish a discovery cut-off date and does not bar the Court from permitting the parties to adjust the schedule for remaining discovery. (Id., ¶¶6-9.) Domus has not received deposition dates for the Onni Defendants’ executives and the Onni Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK). (Id., ¶10.) Domus noticed the depositions for February 2024 and the Onni Defendants refused to produce their witnesses. (Id., ¶10.)

The Onni Defendants’ counsel, Michael Murphy, testifies that after the parties agreed to the discovery schedule in the May 30, 2023 status report, Oni responded to three sets of requests for written discovery from Domus, including over 1,000 requests for production, and produced over 100,000 pages of documents. (Murphy Decl., ¶¶15, 18.) After Domus filed a motion to compel further requests in December 2023, the parties’ discovery referee denied Domus’s motion. (Id., ¶¶19-20.) No requests for written discovery are outstanding. (Id., ¶21.)

In July 2023, Domus noticed the deposition of Apriano Meola and Leonard Hayden, setting deposition dates in August 2023. (Murphy Decl., ¶25.) During Meola’s deposition, Domus’s counsel suspended the deposition so that the parties could meet and confer over documents Domus sought from Meola. (Id., ¶29.) However, Meola was no longer an employee of Onni and had no responsive documents. (Id., ¶28.) The transcript for Meola’s suspended deposition became final in September 2023 and Domus did not move to compel further deposition. (Id., ¶30.)

In August 2023, Onni served timely objections to Leonard Hayden’s deposition notice. (Murphy Decl., ¶32.) Because Hayden resides overseas, the parties agreed on a firm deposition date of August 23, 2023. (Id., ¶33.) Domus cancelled the deposition on August 18, 2023. (Id., ¶34.) Although Murphy attempted to meet and confer about the cancelled deposition, Domus’s counsel refused to participate. (Id., ¶36.) Domus’s counsel never compelled further deposition as to Hayden. (Id.)

Domus did not notice the remaining Onni witnesses’ depositions until February 2024. (Murphy Decl., ¶39.) The Onni Defendants advised they would not produce the remaining witnesses. (Id.) A motion to compel deposition was set to be heard by the discovery referee on March 25, 2024. (Id.)

The Onni Defendants did not complete one deposition of Geodis’s PMQ because they could not proceed with it because the deposition of Domus’s PMQ was delayed after the witness failed to produce documents at the deposition. (Murphy Decl., ¶¶40-42.) Geodis’s counsel agreed to the later deposition date and later agreed to reschedule the deposition after it failed to produce a witness on all topics set forth in the deposition notice. (ID., ¶¶43-45.) Geodis cancelled the second deposition because it fell outside the deadline from the May 30, 2023 status report. (Id., ¶46.) Tho Onni Defendants did not pursue that deposition because it fell outside the agreed deadlines. (Id., ¶47.)

With respect to the requests for written discovery, the discovery referee already denied Domus’s motion to compel further, and the Court confirmed the report on January 22, 2024. The Court will not now countermand the decision of the discovery referee by allowing further written discovery on the same issues. With respect to the depositions, Domus suspended or canceled Meola and Hayden’s depositions and failed to move to compel the depositions before the discovery referee. With respect to the remaining Onni Defendants, Domus failed to notice those depositions until well after the September 2023 deadline to complete them. A motion to compel these depositions was pending before the discovery referee at the time this motion was filed.

Although Domus alleged the Onni Defendants failed to respond to requests for written discovery, the Onni Defendants did respond to requests for written discovery. Although Domus alleged the Onni Defendants refused to produce their witnesses for deposition, the Onni Defendants did produce two witnesses for their timely noticed depositions. Domus cancelled or suspended those depositions and failed to timely notice the depositions of the remaining Onni witnesses.

Domus misrepresents the purpose of the discovery schedule contained in the May 30, 2023 status report. Domus alleges the schedule was not binding and only served to assist the Court in getting up to speed in this case. However, the Court adopted this schedule in its June 6, 2023 minute order to ensure that the case which had been languishing was ready for trial. At the time, as documented in the May 30, 2023 filing, Domus wanted a sooner trial date and therefore a much more truncated discovery schedule than that adopted by the Court on June 6, 2023.

The Court finds the discovery deadlines from the joint status report it adopted in the June 6, 2023 minute order are firm. Domus had ample time to complete discovery and failed to do so in the allotted time. This case has been pending since 2019 and it would not be reasonable to allow any more time for discovery. Domus’s motion to enter its proposed “stipulation” is denied.