Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 19-01077198, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

(1) Motion to Compel Answers to Form Irogs (2) Motion to Compel Answers to Special Irogs (3) Motion to Compel Production (4) Status Conference

Ruling:  Off Calendar – no hearing will be held.  Plaintiff Homeowners Legal Advocates, PLC (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Ming Ge’s (“Defendant”) further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One); Special Interrogatories (Set One); and Request for Production of Documents (Set One).

Any motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or requests for production must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating a good faith attempt to reach an informal resolution.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b)(2).)

Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter regarding Defendant’s responses on March 8, 2022.  (Declaration of Thomas E. Brownfield, ¶ 4.)  On March 15, counsel for Defendant sent an email requesting a time to meet and confer regarding Defendant’s responses and the March 8 letter.  (Id., Ex. H3.)  Plaintiff’s counsel responded on March 16 stating he would be available for a meet and confer the following week and his ability to meet and confer would have to be contingent on a stipulation to extend his time to file a motion to compel further responses.  (Id., Ex. H4.)  On March 17, Defendant’s counsel proposed that they discuss a potential extension of Plaintiff’s motion deadline during the meet and confer and asked whether they could meet and confer on March 21.  (Id., Ex. H5.)

Counsel for Plaintiff did not respond to the March 17 email to confirm the March 21 date.  Instead, he sent an email on March 24 stating that it was his understanding Defendant would not extend Plaintiff’s motion deadline and he was planning to file a motion by the end of the following day.  (Id., Ex. H6.)  Counsel for Defendant replied on March 25, stating he had attempted to set a meet and confer meeting for March 21 and Plaintiff’s counsel never responded.  (Id., Ex. H7.)  He further stated he had been willing to discuss the discovery issues for weeks and refused to grant an extension at that time.  (Ibid.)

Though a meet and confer letter was sent out by Plaintiff, it seems there was no good faith attempt to reach an informal resolution of the issues raised here.  The parties attempted to set up a meet and confer Zoom meeting and Defendant accepted one of Plaintiff’s proposed dates of availability.  However, Plaintiff failed to confirm the meeting, so no discussion ever took place. 

Further, Defendant’s Separate Statement references further responses that were served on July 13, 2022.  (ROA 154.)  It appears at least some of responses at issue have already been supplemented, which would render the Motion moot as to the related requests and interrogatories.  However, Defendant did not attach any further responses to the Opposition.

Therefore, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the motions and the status conference to 11-15-2022 at 2:00 p.m. in Department C11 to allow for a thorough meet and confer.  The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer on the phone or by Zoom meeting and file a joint statement of any issues that remain unresolved after the meet and confer no later than nine court days before the continued hearing date.  The joint statement shall advise the Court as to which responses to Plaintiff’s requests and interrogatories have already been further responded to, if any.

Plaintiff to give notice.