Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22STCV30200, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30200    Hearing Date: March 20, 2024    Dept: I

This is a motion to correct an alleged error in a minute order.  The court generally agrees with plaintiffs’ recitation.  In the prior order, the court suggested, but did not order, plaintiffs to revise their discovery.  The court noted that by adding the prefatory clauses or including assertions of illegality in the requests, they invited denials based on that language and might therefore not get the substantive answers they were seeking.  But the court did not order that.  The court understands that plaintiffs in fact did revise their discovery, which was a good thing.  Revising the discovery had some effects—once revised, no responses to the old discovery were required (although the verifications to the prior answers were still required), which meant that the portion of the order requiring further responses to the old discovery became moot.  The sanctions were as plaintiffs recall—the defendants were found to have lacked substantial justification for the situation and they were ordered to pay the filing fee for each motion.

Because there is no need to amend the order, this motion is DENIED.  However, the court believes that this motion was brought with substantial justification, and therefore plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is also DENIED.