Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 21STCV36141, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36141    Hearing Date: January 18, 2024    Dept: I

The matter is here for an FSC and also for an OSC re: DOE status.

At to the FSC, the court gave its FSC order on August 23, 2022.  On January 17, 2024—the day before today’s hearing—the court received an exhibit list from plaintiff and a declaration.  Plaintiff’s exhibit list has 365 exhibits, 263 of which are labeled “Construction Intrusion and Condition of Apartment” followed by a number.  There is no indication of stipulations as to authenticity or admissibility.  The declaration states that on December 20, 2023, plaintiff requested a date from defendant to exchange documents and the like but defendant would not agree, saying plaintiff had the documents.  On January 9, 2024, plaintiff sent defendant a thumb drive with the exhibits and sought an agreement as to authenticity but received no response.  Plaintiff claims she also sent the witness list to the defense.  On the same date, but later, defendant filed jury instructions, an exhibit list consisting of 13 exhibits but no indication if they are subject to objection or stipulation, and a statement of the case that was not proofread.  That is not close to adequate.  Plaintiff submits no witness list, no trial brief, to the extent plaintiff wants a jury, there are no jury materials.  Defendant submits no witness list and no verdict form.  Defendant has not responded to plaintiff’s declaration nor submitted one of its own. 

What is obvious is that the case is NOT READY FOR TRIAL.  The trial date is VACATED.  The court will discuss with the parties how to proceed and when to set a TSC.

As to DOE status, the court will discuss it with the parties, but the court is tentatively of the view that there is not, and never was, any basis for plaintiff to proceed anonymously.  Accordingly, the court is inclined to re-title the case using plaintiff’s name and to unseal any documents filed under seal where plaintiff’s DOE status was the reason.  The court notes that the earlier related case was not filed under a DOE.