Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00045256-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 30, 2024

05/31/2024  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  Other employment Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00045256-CU-OE-CTL MCKAY VS JET AMG SERVICES LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Jet AMG Services, LLC's motion to compel initial discovery responses from Plaintiff James McKay is DENIED as moot.

Defendant's request for sanctions is denied.

In Defendant's moving papers, Defendant's counsel attests Plaintiff was properly served sets of general and employment form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production on November 27, 2023, but Plaintiff did not serve timely responses. Defendant filed the instant motion on January 24, 2024, but provides no evidence (via declaration or otherwise) it met and conferred prior to filing the motion.

Conversely, counsel for Plaintiff James McKay (attorney Silver) explains that on January 19, 2024, Defendant's counsel left him a voicemail regarding the untimely discovery responses, and in which he asked whether Plaintiff needed an extension to respond. Then on January 24, 2024 (the same day Defendant filed the instant motion, after 11:00 p.m.), attorneys Silver and Riley discussed Plaintiff's written discovery responses. Attorney Silver (the main attorney handling the case) explained he did not know discovery was outstanding because the discovery and a follow-up email from attorney Riley sent on January 19 was sent to the wrong email address (benjamin@gruenberglaw.com). Nonetheless, attorney Silver made clear that Plaintiff would serve responses as soon as possible. Following clarification of the correct email address (ben@gruenberglaw.com), attorney Riley forwarded the original email, which confirm the wrong email address for attorney Silver was used. Some time later, but likely well before the hearing on Defendant's motion, Plaintiff served responses.

Given the above, the court concludes Plaintiff's failure to serve timely responses was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a)(2).) It does not appear Defendant contends the responses do not substantially comply with the Discovery Act. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a)(1).) Accordingly, Defendant's motion is denied as moot, and sanctions are not appropriate under the circumstances.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3080302  26