Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00014149-CU-PL-CTL, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPT.:
EVENT DATE:
EVENT TIME:
HALL OF JUSTICE
TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 11, 2024
01/12/2024 09:00:00 AM C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner
CASE NO.:
CASE CATEGORY:
EVENT TYPE:
CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:
Civil - Unlimited Product Liability Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00014149-CU-PL-CTL DUNNUM VS RYTEC CORPORATION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:
The court will hear from the parties regarding how best to proceed, given the court's comments below.
According to the separate statement, Plaintiffs Timothy and Julie Dunnum had moved to compel further responses from Defendant SD Systems, Inc. to form interrogatory nos. 4.1, 12.1, and 13.1. However, it appears that Defendant has since provided satisfactory amended responses to FI nos. 4.1 and 13.1.
Thus, as the court understands the remaining issues, Plaintiffs still seek a further response to FI no.
12.1, and they seek sanctions.
First, the court is not inclined to award sanctions. Plaintiffs' counsel specifically agreed to treat Defendant's response on September 25, 2023 as timely; references in Plaintiffs' moving papers to assertion of 'improper' objections in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 are therefore disingenuous at best. The court is otherwise unpersuaded that the meet and confer process in this case evidences any abusive discovery practices.
Second, the court does not consider Defendant's primary objection in connection with its amended response to FI no. 12.1 to be without merit. Parties are expected to cooperate throughout the discovery process and to make ongoing efforts to resolve issues informally. Given this expectation of cooperation, it was reasonable for Defendant's counsel to request that Plaintiff provide the address for the specific building(s) at issue in order to assist in obtaining the requested information.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3035398 15