Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00320, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWCV00320 Hearing Date: April 3, 2024 Dept: C
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST DISTRICT OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD v.
IRENE JENSEN
CASE
NO.: 22NWCV00320
HEARING:
4/3/24 @ 9:30 A.M.
#1
TENTATIVE RULING
I.
Plaintiff Pacific Southwest District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two is CONTINUED.
II.
Plaintiff Pacific Southwest District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two
is CONTINUED.
III.
Plaintiff Pacific Southwest District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents,
Set Three is CONTINUED.
IV.
Plaintiff Pacific Southwest District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents,
Set Four is CONTINUED.
Moving Party to give NOTICE.
Form Interrogatories, Set Two
This
is a quiet title action over land occupied by a church’s former congregation. Plaintiffs Pacific Southwest District of the
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod move to compel further responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set Two pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300.
Code
of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 allows a party to file a motion
compelling further responses to form interrogatories if it finds that the
response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response
is without merit or too general.
Timeliness
Notice of the motion to compel further must be
provided within 45 days of service of the response or on or before any specific
later date to which the parties have agreed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310,
subd. (c).) This 45-day deadline runs from the date the verified response is
served and is extended for service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil
Procedure sections 1010.6, subdivision (a)(4) and 1013, subdivision (a). Failure
to timely move to compel within the specified period constitutes a waiver of
any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)
The 45-day rule to bring a motion to compel is
mandatory and jurisdictional “in the sense that it renders court without
authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v.
Super. Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)
Counsel agreed to extend Plaintiff’s
time to move to compel further responses to all discovery until 45 days after
Plaintiff produced documents. (Decl. Leverone, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff produced
documents on July 6, 2023. (Decl. Leverone, ¶ 8.) On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff
filed anti-SLAPP motions. This stayed discovery until notice of entry of order
ruling on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (g).) That occurred on
October 25, 2023.
Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on
November 30, 2023. Thus, the motion is timely.
Meet and Confer
The
motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) A meet and
confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a
reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue
presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)
For purposes of
determining whether a motion to compel discovery was preceded by a reasonable
and good faith effort to meet and confer, such a reasonable and good faith
attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with
opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the
matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v.
Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.)
The
Court finds Plaintiff did not meet and confer in good faith. Plaintiff’s
counsel states, “Later on July 6, 2023, counsel for PSD sent a final
meet-and-confer letter, to which counsel for PLC never responded.” (Decl.
Leverone, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s counsel does not state more.
Based
on the above, the Court continues the hearing to Wednesday, May 1, 2024 at 9:30
A.M. in Dept. SE-C. The parties must submit a joint statement within 20 days
and if discovery issues have not been resolved, the Court will hear arguments
at the hearing.
Special
Interrogatories, Set Two
This
is a quiet title action over land occupied by a church’s former congregation. Plaintiffs Pacific Southwest District of the
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod move to compel further responses to Special
Interrogatories, Set Two pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300.
Code
of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 allows a party to file a motion
compelling further responses to form interrogatories if it finds that the
response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response
is without merit or too general.
Timeliness
Notice of the motion to compel further must be
provided within 45 days of service of the response or on or before any specific
later date to which the parties have agreed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310,
subd. (c).) This 45-day deadline runs from the date the verified response is
served and is extended for service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil
Procedure sections 1010.6, subdivision (a)(4) and 1013, subdivision (a). Failure
to timely move to compel within the specified period constitutes a waiver of
any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)
The 45-day rule to bring a motion to compel is
mandatory and jurisdictional “in the sense that it renders court without
authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v.
Super. Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)
Counsel agreed to extend Plaintiff’s
time to move to compel further responses to all discovery until 45 days after
Plaintiff produced documents. (Decl. Leverone, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff produced
documents on July 6, 2023. (Decl. Leverone, ¶ 8.) On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff
filed anti-SLAPP motions. This stayed discovery until notice of entry of order
ruling on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (g).) That occurred on
October 25, 2023.
Plaintiffs filed the instant motion
on November 30, 2023. Thus, the motion is timely.
Meet and Confer
The
motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) A meet and
confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a
reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue
presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)
For purposes of
determining whether a motion to compel discovery was preceded by a reasonable
and good faith effort to meet and confer, such a reasonable and good faith
attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with
opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the
matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v.
Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.)
The
Court finds Plaintiff did not meet and confer in good faith. Plaintiff’s
counsel states, “Later on July 6, 2023, counsel for PSD sent a final
meet-and-confer letter, to which counsel for PLC never responded.” (Decl.
Leverone, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s counsel does not state more.
Based
on the above, the Court continues the hearing to Wednesday, May 1, 2024 at 9:30
A.M. in Dept. SE-C. The parties must submit a joint statement within 20 days
and if discovery issues have not been resolved, the Court will hear arguments
at the hearing.
Requests for Production of
Documents, Set Three
This
is a quiet title action over land occupied by a church’s former congregation. Plaintiffs Pacific Southwest District of the
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod move to compel further responses to Requests for
Production of Documents, Set Three pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 2031.310.
Code
of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion
compelling further responses to document requests if it finds that the response
is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is
without merit or too general.
Timeliness
Notice of the motion to compel further must be
provided within 45 days of service of the response or on or before any specific
later date to which the parties have agreed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310,
subd. (c).) This 45-day deadline runs from the date the verified response is
served and is extended for service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil
Procedure sections 1010.6, subdivision (a)(4) and 1013, subdivision (a). Failure
to timely move to compel within the specified period constitutes a waiver of
any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)
The 45-day rule to bring a motion to compel is
mandatory and jurisdictional “in the sense that it renders court without
authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v.
Super. Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)
Counsel agreed to extend Plaintiff’s
time to move to compel further responses to all discovery until 45 days after
Plaintiff produced documents. (Decl. Leverone, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff produced
documents on July 6, 2023. (Decl. Leverone, ¶ 8.) On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff
filed anti-SLAPP motions. This stayed discovery until notice of entry of order
ruling on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (g).) That occurred on
October 25, 2023.
Plaintiffs filed the instant motion
on November 30, 2023. Thus, the motion is timely.
Meet and Confer
The
motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) A meet and
confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a
reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue
presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)
For purposes of determining
whether a motion to compel discovery was preceded by a reasonable and good
faith effort to meet and confer, such a reasonable and good faith attempt at
informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing
counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over,
compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v. Alegre (2009)
177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.)
The
Court finds Plaintiff did not meet and confer in good faith. Plaintiff’s
counsel states, “Later on July 6, 2023, counsel for PSD sent a final
meet-and-confer letter, to which counsel for PLC never responded.” (Decl.
Leverone, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s counsel does not state more.
Based
on the above, the Court continues the hearing to Wednesday, May 1, 2024 at 9:30
A.M. in Dept. SE-C. The parties must submit a joint statement within 20 days
and if discovery issues have not been resolved, the Court will hear arguments
at the hearing.
Requests for Production of Documents, Set Four
This
is a quiet title action over land occupied by a church’s former congregation. Plaintiffs Pacific Southwest District of the
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod move to compel further responses to Requests for
Production of Documents, Set Three pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 2031.310.
Code
of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion
compelling further responses to document requests if it finds that the response
is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is
without merit or too general.
Timeliness
Notice of the motion to compel further must be
provided within 45 days of service of the response or on or before any specific
later date to which the parties have agreed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310,
subd. (c).) This 45-day deadline runs from the date the verified response is
served and is extended for service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil
Procedure sections 1010.6, subdivision (a)(4) and 1013, subdivision (a). Failure
to timely move to compel within the specified period constitutes a waiver of
any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)
The 45-day rule to bring a motion to compel is
mandatory and jurisdictional “in the sense that it renders court without
authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v.
Super. Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)
Counsel agreed to extend Plaintiff’s
time to move to compel further responses to all discovery until 45 days after
Plaintiff produced documents. (Decl. Leverone, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff produced
documents on July 6, 2023. (Decl. Leverone, ¶ 8.) On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff
filed anti-SLAPP motions. This stayed discovery until notice of entry of order
ruling on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (g).) That occurred on
October 25, 2023.
Plaintiffs filed the instant motion
on November 30, 2023. Thus, the motion is timely.
Meet and Confer
The
motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) A meet and
confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a
reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue
presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)
For purposes of
determining whether a motion to compel discovery was preceded by a reasonable
and good faith effort to meet and confer, such a reasonable and good faith
attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with
opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the
matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v.
Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.)
The
Court finds Plaintiff did not meet and confer in good faith. Plaintiff’s
counsel states, “Later on July 6, 2023, counsel for PSD sent a final
meet-and-confer letter, to which counsel for PLC never responded.” (Decl.
Leverone, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s counsel does not state more.
Based
on the above, the Court continues the hearing to Wednesday, May 1, 2024 at 9:30
A.M. in Dept. SE-C. The parties must submit a joint statement within 20 days
and if discovery issues have not been resolved, the Court will hear arguments
at the hearing.