Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 21NWCV00601, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00601    Hearing Date: January 19, 2023    Dept: C

WEST CENTRAL PRODUCE, INC. v. WB USC LLC

CASE NO.:  21NWCV00601

HEARING:  01/19/23

#4

TENTATIVE ORDER

     I.        Plaintiff WEST CENTRAL PRODUCE, INC.’s Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents From: (1) WB USC LLC; (2) TINSELTOWN SUNSET LLC; (3) JRUCW, INC.; (4) CWHH, INC.; (5) CATCHRIS, LLC; (6) CRISTCAT HOLLYWOOD, INC.; and (7) CELEBRITY BURGERS, LLC is CONTINUED to Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. SE-C.

    II.        Plaintiff WEST CENTRAL PRODUCE, INC.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories From: (1) WB USC LLC; (2) TINSELTOWN SUNSET, LLC; (3) CWHH, INC.; (4) CATCHRIS, LLC; (5) CRISTCAT HOLLYWOOD, INC. and (6) CELEBRITY BURGERS, LLC is CONTINUED to Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. SE-C.

  III.        Plaintiff WEST CENTRAL PRODUCE, INC.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories From: (1) WB USC LLC; (2) TINSELTOWN SUNSET LLC; (3) JRUCW, INC.; (4) CWHH, INC.; (5) CATCHRIS, LLC; (6) CRISTCAT HOLLYWOOD, INC.; and (7) CELEBRITY BURGERS, LLC is CONTINUED to Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. SE-C.

Moving Party to give Notice.

In Opposition, Defendants argue that these discovery Motions should be denied because this action is improperly classified as an unlimited action. Those arguments are not properly before the Court at this time. As of January 17, 2023, no Motion to Reclassify this action has been filed/scheduled with this Court.

The Court is not persuaded that counsel have exhausted their meet and confer obligations pursuant to the Code. Counsel are advised that their meet and confer efforts should go beyond merely sending letters stating their respective positions. (See Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439.) “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate…involves the exercise of discretion. The level of effort at an informal resolution which satisfies the ‘reasonable and good faith attempt’ standard depends upon the circumstances. In a larger, more complex discovery request, a greater effort at informal resolution may be warranted. In a simpler, or more narrowly focused case, a more modest effort may suffice. The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of the discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant. Judges have broad powers and responsibilities to determine what measures and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances.” (Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

In Reply, Counsel for Plaintiff indicates that no meaningful meet and confer occurred between the parties. There are 3 Motions concerning several defendants at issue, and each Separate Statement ranges from 200-400 pages long. Counsel are instructed to further meet and confer on the issues outlined in the subject Motions.

Counsel are ORDERED to make further efforts to resolve the issues presented. If, after exhausting those efforts, court intervention is needed, counsel may appear and argue the merits on the continued hearing date. If counsel are unable to informally resolve their discovery disputes, then counsel are instructed to submit a JOINT STATEMENT outlining the remaining disputed issues for which a ruling is required. The joint statement must be FILED on or before March 6, 2023.