Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV12122, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV12122 Hearing Date: February 28, 2023 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
February 28, 2023
21STCV12122
Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
DECISION
The motion here was filed on 9/21/2022.
Defense counsel did not reach out to Plaintiff’s counsel regarding issues with Plaintiff’s responses (which were served on 8/5/2022) until 9/20/2022, the day before filing the motion.
A prerequisite to bringing a motion to compel further responses is a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve the issues presented by the motion. The motion must include a “a good faith declaration,” stating that the attempt was indeed made. (C.C.P. § 2030.300)
Reaching out to Plaintiff’s counsel the day before the 45 day deadline and then filing the motion the next day when there is no response back does not really constitute a reasonable and good faith effort to informally resolve the issues.
Plaintiff’s counsel did reach out to Defendant’s counsel to attempt to resolve this matter prior to the IDC. Defendant’s counsel did not respond.
At the IDC, Plaintiff’s counsel did agree to provide further responses and did so.
At the continued IDC, Defendant’s Counsel noted two issues with the further responses: (1) there were documents mentioned in the documents produced by Plaintiff’s counsel that were not produced and (2) not all lien agreements were produced.
At the continued IDC, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he simply turned over documents without reviewing them to determine if all documents mentioned in the production were included in the production and if all responsive documents were in fact produced. Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he did not have time to review documents. This stance is just as unacceptable as Defendant’s Counsel’s half- hearted attempt to meet and confer.
Under these circumstances, the court declines to impose sanctions.
The motion is granted in so far as follows:
Within 30 days, Plaintiff must produce the documents referenced in Exhibit 1 to the 2/21/23 Declaration of Defendant’s Counsel or if they have already been produced, must identify each document by bates number.
Within 30 days, Plaintiff must provide a verified response indicating that PLTF-0452, PLTF-0468, PLTF-0521, PLTF-0523, PLTF-0535, PLTF-0573, PLTF-0576, PLTF-0584, PLTF-0590, PLTF-0605, PLTF-0720, PLTF-0763, PLTF-0799 are all the lien agreements within the custody or control of Plaintiff. To the extent that there are other lien agreements that have not been produced, Plaintiff must indicate that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, the other lien agreements have not been produced because they have been destroyed, have been lost, misplaced or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. Plaintiff should also state the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by the party to have possession, custody, or control of any such lien agreements.
The Court notes that it considers lien agreements that are in the possession of the treating providers to be in the custody or control of Plaintiff.
Moving party to provide notice.
