Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 21SMCV01445, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

The Court generally uploads tentative rulings the morning of the hearing.  Because of that, the parties cannot submit on the tentative the night before and not appear.  However, if after reviewing the tentative ruling ALL COUNSEL submit, they should tell the Court's judicial assistant when checking in and the Court will endeavor to either not hear the case in light of the submission or, if the Court believes that a hearing is still needed for some other reason, then the Court will be inclined to give priority.

In some cases, tentative rulings may be given by email the morning of the hearing rather than on the tentative ruling site.  Please check your email if you have not seen the tentative.  The email is generally sent to the persons who have signed up for a remote hearing.

For those appearing in the courtroom, the Court will provide a hard copy of the tentative ruling. 

Case Number: 21SMCV01445    Hearing Date: May 5, 2023    Dept: R

The court is somewhat disappointed that the parties missed entirely the point of the last hearing.  The last hearing was on the motion for leave to file an amended complaint—a motion that became moot by stipulation.  The court declined to take the matter off calendar for one reason and one reason only.  Seeing the many discovery motions upcoming, the court set out its views and guidelines as to what was required in the hope that the parties would take it to hard.  It was a waste of electrons.

The motions are premature because the meet and confer is not sufficient.  A 90 minute meet and confer with at least some counsel who the court believes lacked the authority to reach an agreement is not sufficient.  Promises of supplemental responses that never materialize are not sufficient.  Promises that documents will be produced once a confidentiality stipulation is signed but where some defendants won’t sign is not sufficient—especially where not all documents are confidential.  Responses that do not clearly and unambiguously set forth whether documents and information is being withheld on the basis of objections is not sufficient.  Responses that incorporate general objections is not sufficient.  On the other side, many of plaintiffs’ requests are overbroad and they do demand things that they ought not demand.  A seriatim series of motions that tie up this court’s docket day after day is not appropriate or sufficient.  At the same time, the court has reviewed the discovery requests and there are problems with them, many of which were in fact illuminated in the opposition papers.  Plaintiff is not without some degree of fault here.

The court has 770 cases on its docket.  This is only one of them.  The court will therefore try again.

Its prior guidelines are reiterated.  The parties will meet and confer, and that means LEAD COUNSEL ONLY.  The meet and confer will start Wednesday.  It will go from day to day—all day and every day—until completed subject only to other appearances in court.  If the court needs to impose orders like that to get this case moving, it will.  The court would far prefer that the parties read the court’s prior order and abide by it according to their own schedules.  Right now, the motions are in abeyance.  On May 9, 2023, the court will hold a status conference re: discovery.  It is not an IDC.  The parties are light years away from being in a position to invoke the court’s substantive aid.  The court intends to discuss on that date the progress the parties have made.  At that time, the court expects to have a firm commitment for when the supplemental responses will be served and the documents produced.  Any party not signing the stipulated confidentiality agreement is not to be given confidential documents but the documents are to be produced to all other parties.  The production will be subject to the stipulation pending the court’s signature.  The answer to the supplemental responses and production dates will be a date on or before May 24—not for the start, but for the completion.  The court will also discuss when the meet and confer process will conclude.  The court expects it to conclude sometime in the month of May with any additional materials (responses or documents) produced by the end of the first full week in June.  Irrespective of the outcome of the meet and confer process, the requests for sanctions will be restored to the calendar at some point.  The parties can look at the court’s prior guidelines to anticipate whether the responses that were extant at the time the motions were filed pass muster as good faith.  If not, the meet and confer process will not bar a sanctions order.  It is no answer to a sanctions request that, while the initial responses were in bad faith, the responding party was willing to discuss good faith responses.  To avoid sanctions, responses must be in good faith from the start.

The court does not intend to hold more than 5 minutes of argument on this ex parte today, and the court does not anticipate a long hearing on May 9.

The parties might glean that the court is more than a little bit unhappy at the direction this discovery is going.  That would be accurate.