Judge: Kimberly Knill, Case: 30-2022-01242035-CU-BC-CJC, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint a Discovery Referee

Plaintiff I.S. Investments LLC’s request for the appointment of a discovery referee is DENIED without prejudice.

“Unless both parties have agreed to a reference, the court should not make blanket orders directing all discovery motions to a discovery referee except in the unusual case where a majority of factors favoring reference are present. These include: (1) there are multiple issues to be resolved; (2) there are multiple motions to be heard simultaneously; (3) the present motion is only one in a continuum of many; (4) the number of documents to be reviewed (especially in issues based on assertions of privilege) make the inquiry inordinately time-consuming.” (Taggares v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 94, 105 (Taggares).) “In making its decision, the trial courts need consider the statutory scheme is designed only to permit reference over the parties’ objections where that procedure is necessary, not merely convenient.” (Id. at p. 105-106.)

Plaintiff failed to show the presence of the Taggares factors or cite authority supporting appointment of a discovery referee to broadly review the status of discovery. There are no pending discovery motions, and plaintiff has not identified a specific dispute or request it seeks referred to a discovery referee.

Plaintiff to give notice.