Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV01326, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01326    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: I

This is a motion to stay the case pending appeal of the court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration.  In the court’s underlying order, the court noted that the question was a close one, and while the court believed that the motion had to be denied, the court practically invited the appeal by noting the difficult, but perhaps not too uncommon, facts here.  Plaintiff is elderly, although there is no evidence that plaintiff has a particular ailment that makes time more critical than it would otherwise be given plaintiff’s age.  In order to avoid delay, the court ordered that limited discovery could go forward.  Specifically, the court allowed the sort of discovery that would be allowed in arbitration anyway.  The court’s logic was that discovery that would go forward in arbitration would go forward, and given plaintiff’s age, no good purpose would be served by delaying that.  On the other hand, the court did not want the full panoply of civil discovery to go forward because that would essentially vitiate much of the relief should the court be reversed.  Defendant asserts that plaintiff has taken advantage of the court’s order, trying to drive a semi-truck through what the court viewed as a relatively narrow opening.  Plaintiff contends that the discovery is narrowly focused.

The court has reviewed the discovery.  Although it is certainly more constrained than the court would expect were arbitration not an issue, it is not laser-beam nor does it comply with the court’s order.  On the other hand, plaintiff asserts that defendant will not engage in a meaningful meet and confer.  In its reply papers, the defense stated that it has met and conferred and in fact agreed to produce a number of documents and respond to the RFA’s.  The issue now seems to center to some degree around depositions.

The court is not inclined to allow depositions.  First, depositions in the arbitration context are generally more limited than in the regular civil court.  Second, unlike producing documents, there is the potential for a greater need for judicial involvement with regard to depositions, and it is just that sort of entanglement that the court wants to avoid pending the appeal. 

It would appear, then, that defendant has produced documents in the spirit of the court’s order.  The court is inclined to hold the defense to its bargain, but otherwise find that whatever discovery was appropriate pending appeal has now been taken.  Again, though, the court assumes that plaintiff is seeking calendar priority in the Court of Appeal to resolve the appeal very quickly.