Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2019-01111226, Date: 2023-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Discovery filed by Taghreed Abutaleb

Defendant Dr. Taghreed Abutaleb (“Defendant”) moves for an order instructing Plaintiff Dr. Ibrahim Ghanem (“Plaintiff”) to comply with the terms of the informally agreed upon discovery exchange or, alternatively, specially setting an informal discovery conference.

The Motion is brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.  That section grants the court the power to, among other things, enforce order and provide for the orderly conduct in the proceedings before it and control in furtherance of justice , the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining thereto.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 128(a).)  “This authority includes the power to supervise proceedings for the orderly conduct of the court’s business and to guard against inept procedures and unnecessary indulgences that tend to delay the conduct of its proceedings.”  (California Crane School, Inc. v. Nat’l Com. for Certification of Crane Operators (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 12, 22.)

During an informal discovery conference in the fall of 2021, the parties had agreed upon a mutual discovery exchange plan.  (Declaration of Omar J. Yassin, ¶ 2.)  On July 13, 2022, counsel for Defendant emailed a proposed plan for a mutual document exchange and coordinated depositions.  (Id., Ex. A.)  On July 27, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff responded and agreed that depositions in late August and early September would work and provided a list of documents requested by Plaintiff.  (Id., Ex. B.)  Defense counsel proposed that the parties conduct a mutual document production on September 2, 2022.  (Id., Ex. C.)  On September 7, 2022, after the proposed mutual production date, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he was reviewing his client’s documents and would get back to Defense counsel later that day.  (Ibid.)

On November 16 and December 15, 2022, Defense counsel followed up again on the document exchange and Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he agreed that the discovery exchange is the way to go.  (Id., Ex. D.)  However, to date, the parties have not conducted the mutual document exchange as agreed.

Of note, the parties have filed numerous stipulations to continue trial in the past few months.  (See ROAs 132, 140, 148, and 156.)  Thus, the delay in completion of the parties’ mutual document exchange and depositions have caused repeated delays in trial.  Trial is now scheduled for August 7, 2023.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has refused to commit to a date for the parties’ mutual document exchange, despite the parties’ agreement, and that refusal has necessitated several continuances of trial.  The Court finds that the granting of this instant Motion would be in furtherance of justice and is necessary to ensure that no further trial continuances are required. 

Thus, the unopposed Motion is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ORDERED to comply with the parties’ agreed upon mutual document exchange no later than June 29, 2023.

Defendant to give notice.