Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 21STCV02318, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02318    Hearing Date: October 20, 2022    Dept: R

Rhetoric aside, the Court does not understand why defendant requires extra time.  To the extent is that defendant intends to defeat the motion by showing just how evil plaintiffs are, the ex parte is not well taken.  The Court is certainly not going to decide the case’s merits on a discovery sanctions motion.  And, while the Court understands the old saw about a good defense being a strong offense (and vice versa), that does not really apply here.  Defendant needs to defend the motion by showing that her own actions in discovery are not sanction-worthy, or at least not very sanction-worthy.  Thus, the Court would normally be inclined to deny the ex parte. 

The Court is concerned that the real problem is that defendant failed to seek more time until after the opposition deadline expired and that this is a way to get the opposition before the Court without filing an untimely opposition.  If so, then it has the unintended consequence of supporting plaintiff’s motion rather than overcoming it.  That kind of fast and loose playing with the rules without so much as acknowledging the problem lends credence to plaintiff’s theory that defendant is playing hide-the-ball with the evidence.  Of course, defendant could have filed a more timely request to extend the time—one that was filed such that if it was denied a timely opposition could still have been drafted.  But that is not what defendant did.

Having said that, requests for sanctions that could affect the case’s outcome in what turns out to be a counter-factual way is not something done lightly.  The Court will discuss with the parties what appears to be a disturbing trend of scorched earth litigation.