Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 20STCV16594, Date: 2023-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV16594    Hearing Date: April 10, 2023    Dept: R

At the last hearing, plaintiff was requesting additional time to obtain further discovery from Onyx.  Or, to be more specific, plaintiff contended that it had only recently received certain documents and it believed that its motion to compel would provide further information.  Onyx said it had fully complied with everything and that there was no further reason to delay.

The court continued the hearing to allow the parties to run to ground a few things.  First, plaintiff suggested that Onyx was trying to hide information through artful language.  Onyx denied any such intent.  The court asked the parties to meet and confer to resolve that issue.  If Onyx truly is withholding no information, it ought to be able to so state and plaintiff ought to be able to craft reasonable language to that effect.  Second, plaintiff suggested that it needed some additional time to digest the information recently received.  It has now had that time; to the extent it received additional information, the court presumes it has digested it by now.  Third, plaintiff suggested that Onyx was not providing information concerning similar models of the Wand.  Onyx said that it had provided all information concerning similar models of the Wand, at least through the date of plaintiff’s purchase.  (It could be that Onyx went further and provided documents through the date of plaintiff’s request—the court is not sure given the colloquy at the hearing.)  The court asked the parties to meet and confer on this, but if Onyx has provided information on similar models then that issue seems to be resolved.  If not, the court will need to know how plaintiff came up with the models in question and why Onyx is resisting production of at least some of them.  Fourth, and finally, plaintiff suggested that Onyx was in fact not being forthcoming in the production.  In other words, plaintiff suggests that Onyx has responsive documents that it has said it would provide but that it has not provided.  Plaintiff’s example is a complaint that post-dated plaintiff’s purchase, but would have been responsive to the request and that Onyx claimed it would produce.  It found the document only because the complaining party approached plaintiff’s counsel.  The court will inquire further of this, but generally the court does not issue orders compelling a party to produce documents it has stated under oath it does not have.  On the other hand, if plaintiff’s evidence is compelling, the court may want Onyx’s counsel to take a direct role in the collection and production of documents to ensure that it is being done correctly and completely.

Hopefully, the meet and confer has been successful and we can move forward with the motion.