Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCV01040, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22LBCV01040    Hearing Date: May 23, 2023    Dept: S27

1.     Background Facts

Plaintiffs, Drew Fibus filed this action against Defendant, Anchors Up, Inc. for damages arising out of an alleged failure to repair Plaintiff’s boat and failure to return the boat.  Defendant takes the position that Plaintiff is improperly withholding payment for services rendered. 

2.     Motion to Compel Further Responses

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to FROGs.  The initial issue before the Court is whether Plaintiff adequately met and conferred prior to filing the motion.  Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter on 3/17/23 that detailed the perceived defects with Defendant’s responses and asked for further responses by 3/24/23.  On 3/24/23, Defendant wrote back and explained its position with respect to each of the FROGs in dispute, and indicated it looked forward to discussing the matter further.  On 3/31/23, Plaintiff wrote back and said Defendant left him with no choice but to file a motion, which he would do forthwith.

The Court finds the parties could and should have met and conferred over the phone in an attempt to truly resolve the issues presented.  Additionally, Defendant’s responsive letter makes various specific points concerning the responses, and Plaintiff never addressed those points.  The Court is continuing the hearing on this motion to 7/06/23, at which time the parties have another MTCF scheduled for hearing.  The Court is hopeful the parties will be able to resolve all issues relating to both motions prior to the continued hearing date.

In the interest of assisting the parties in resolving their issues, the Court provides the following guidance:

First, Plaintiff never mentioned any problem with verifications in the meet and confer correspondence.  Plaintiff now argues the verifications are improper because they are not dated, and therefore the responses are unverified and all objections are waived.  Plaintiff presents no on point authority to support the position that a verification to a discovery response must be dated, and the Court knows of none.  At most, the Court would order Defendant to sign and date the verifications. 

Second, Plaintiff takes issue with Defendant’s use of boilerplate objections prior to its substantive responses.  While this is a common practice, the Court finds only objections that can be legally supported should be interposed.  Defendant, during the meet and confer process, must determine which objections it can legally support and interpose only those objections.

Third, Plaintiff takes issue with the substance of some of the responses.  Defendant, in its responsive letter, explained why it is responding the way it is.  If Plaintiff continues to believe the responses are insufficient, the parties must discuss, over the phone, exactly why Plaintiff so believes.  The parties may wish to agree to amend some of the language of the actual FROGs in order to ensure they are clear, so Defendant can respond without compromising its defense. 

At this time, no sanctions are imposed. 

If the parties are unable to resolve remaining issues, they must file a joint statement of items in dispute at least two weeks prior to the continued hearing date.  They must file a statement for the motion currently pending for hearing on 7/06/23 as well.  The joint statement must contain the text of the discovery item in dispute, the most recent iteration of Defendants’ response, and each party’s statement as to why a further response is or is not necessary.  If sanctions remain at issue, they must be briefed in the same manner. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.