Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV28122, Date: 2023-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28122    Hearing Date: April 2, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Tentative Ruling

¿ 

Hearing Date:           4/2/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name.:      22STCV28122 MICHAEL WILLIAM WILSON vs CLAYTON DAMIAN FISCHER

Motion Name:                MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE, AND FOR SANCTIONS

Moving Party:           Plaintiff

Responding Party:    Defendant Southwark Metal Manufacturing

Notice:                     Sufficient

¿¿¿ 

Ruling:                     MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES IS CONTINUED

On January 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed the original motion to compel further responses to Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Set Five. On March 7, 2024, the Court denied the motion without prejudice for failing to specify when the responses were provided and whether the motion was filed within the 45-day deadline. Additionally, the Court denied the original motion on the basis that Plaintiff did not meet and confer sufficiently before filing the motion and ordered the parties to meet and confer in good faith by March 14, 2024. On the same day the original motion was heard, March 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion to compel further without meeting and conferring first. On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a declaration indicating that a meet and confer had occurred. The next day, Defendant filed an opposition, arguing that the meet and confer process was insufficient and bad faith use of discovery.

On March 7, 2024, the Court ordered the Parties, including Plaintiff, to meet and confer in good faith by March 14, 2024. Contrary to this directive, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion after the hearing without first engaging in the required meet and confer process with Defendant. (Borisov Decl., ¶ 6.) Although Plaintiff filed a meet and confer declaration on March 18, 2024, this occurred after the Court-ordered date of March 14, 2024, and after the filing of the renewed motion. The purpose of the meet and confer requirement is to resolve discovery disputes reasonably and in good faith, thereby minimizing unnecessary judicial intervention. The sequence of events, with Plaintiff filing the renewed motion immediately following the initial hearing and preceding any genuine meet and confer efforts, suggests that the meet and confer was not conducted in good faith. Instead, it appeared as a tactical maneuver aimed at pressuring the opposing party into compliance with a "take it or leave it" strategy, where if Defendant complied with Plaintiff's demands, the motion would be taken off calendar. The Court does not find that Plaintiff has met and conferred reasonably or in good faith.

Further, Personal Injury Hub Courts will not entertain Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses until the parties have participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). (Eighth Amended Standing Order For Procedures In The Personal Injury Hub Court at p. 7.) The Court may either deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to discovery if the parties do not schedule and complete an IDC prior to the hearing date set for a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery. (Id.)

The parties are required to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) to attempt to resolve any outstanding discovery disputes before a motion to compel further can be heard. The Parties are ORDERED to attend an IDC set for _______, 2024, and the current motion will be continued to _______, 2024.

The Court notes that it is concerned about Plaintiff’s discovery conduct in this case.  Defendant Southwark has stated that Plaintiff has served more than 500 Requests for Admissions and more than 500 Requests for Production of Documents.  This case is not a complex matter warranting such extensive discovery, albeit the Court understands that Plaintiff is seeking to obtain sufficient information to support a punitive damages claim.  That effort needs to be undertaken in a reasonable manner that does not effectively weaponize the discovery process.  While the Court is not ready to deem the effort inappropriate at this point, Plaintiff is hereby put on notice that the Court is sufficiently concerned as to note it now.  Prior to the IDC, the parties are to meet and confer and determine if they can agree upon a reasonable discovery plan.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:¿¿¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿¿ 

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.