Judge Michael D. Washington, Case Number: 37-2022-00041719-CU-PO-NC, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael D. Washington, Case: 37-2022-00041719-CU-PO-NC, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 06, 2024

06/07/2024 01:30:00 PM N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael D Washington

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00041719-CU-PO-NC VALDIVIESO VS. GOSKY OCEANSIDE INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Amended Motion, 11/17/2023

An appearance is necessary on the four motions to compel discovery brought by defendant/cross-complainant Sky Team Inc. dba Chicagoland Skydiving Center (Chicagoland).

This case concerns an airplane crash. The plaintiff, Marco Valdivieso (Plaintiff), is a certified pilot.

Plaintiff was allegedly seeking training in how to pilot for skydivers. The record contains indications that Plaintiff is a resident of Taiwan, is employed in Taiwan, and needed certain training to satisfy insurance requirements for his employer back in Taiwan. Thus, Plaintiff hired defendant Chicagoland to provide him with such training. Chicagoland allegedly 'arranged' for Plaintiff to go on a skydiving flight with defendant GoSky Oceanside Inc. (GoSky).

The flight that Plaintiff took with GoSky took place in and around Oceanside, California. The aircraft that the parties used for the flight was allegedly owned by GoSky. Since Plaintiff was learning on the flight, it is alleged that Plaintiff was not necessarily acting in the capacity of a pilot and had 'no access to any of the aircraft's controls...' (ROA 1, ¶ 12.) It is alleged that the aircraft crashed due to a maneuver done by the GoSky pilot. It is further alleged that the crash caused significant injuries to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff filed the instant civil lawsuit in the Superior Court of San Diego on October 17, 2022 alleging causes of action for negligence, vicarious liability, and joint venture against GoSky and Chicagoland.

It appears that Plaintiff filed similar causes of action against the same defendants in Ogle County, Illinois, specifically in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. However, the facts regarding the Illinois lawsuit are somewhat unclear. When this issue was first brought to this Court's attention, the facts provided indicated both that: --'...the Illinois action was filed first...' (ROA 89, p. 5:1, citing Pittacora Decl. ¶ 5) --'He filed the same causes of action against the same defendants in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Ogle County Illinois on October 21, 2022.' (ROA 89, p. 3:22-24, citing Low Decl., ¶¶ 3 and 6.) These two facts appear to be at odds given that if the Illinois action was filed on October 21, 2022, it would be filed after the instant action, which was filed on October 17, 2022. In any event, on November 28, 2023, this Court stayed the proceedings in this case pending resolution of certain matters in the Illinois action. (ROA 117.) At the time, Chicagoland had filed four motions to compel discovery that are at issue presently. All four of said motions appear to have been filed in mid-November 2023, but were Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3091458 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: VALDIVIESO VS. GOSKY OCEANSIDE INC [IMAGED] 37-2022-00041719-CU-PO-NC continued as a result of the stay.

After a Status Report and hearing in January of 2024, the motions were again continued. And, most recently, at a Status Conference on May 24, 2024, this Court continued the Case Management Conference to coincide with the hearings on the four discovery motions that were set to be heard on June 7, 2024. The Court's minutes from that hearing indicate that: 'Court and counsel confer regarding the status of the Illinois case.' (ROA 160.) The reason for the short continuance was that the parties believed and represented that certain determinations would be made in the Illinois case that would resolve that case and warrant a complete lifting of the stay in the instant California action. It appears that that has now happened.

In fact, Plaintiff filed a document entitled a 'Response' on May 31, 2024 – just one week prior to the instant hearing – stating that: 'Plaintiff believes this case can proceed as normal.' (ROA 162, p. 4:2.) The moving party, Chicagoland, filed a 'Reply Declaration' on June 3, 2024 objecting to Plaintiff's 'Response' as being a late-filed opposition. Chicagoland also addressed the underlying substance of the discovery motions that are pending.

To be clear, though the motions were continued to be heard as of June 7, 2024, the Court's view of said hearing date – particularly as of the recent Status Conference on May 24, 2024, a mere two weeks prior to the instant hearing – was more of a 'placeholder' as the motions were continued multiple times pending resolution of the Illinois matter. As such, the Court does not necessarily view the 'Response' as untimely because the Court's intention was always to re-set the discovery hearings for full briefing once the Illinois matter resolved. Indeed, the case was technically stayed.

It further appears to the Court that the pending nature of the Illinois matter was clouding certain progress in terms of resolving discovery disputes informally in the instant action. It appears that, very recently, the Illinois action has come to a resolution. Moreover, it appears that as a result of that resolution, Plaintiff now acknowledges that the stay of this case should be lifted.

Accordingly, an appearance is necessary to apprise the Court of the status of the Illinois case and confirm that this Court should formally lift the stay that was previously imposed. If it is appropriate to lift the stay at this juncture (as it appears to be), the Court intends to set the matter for trial (as the case is on for a Case Management Conference) and also continue the hearing on the four discovery motions so that proper meet and confer can take place and proper briefing can be done on the motions.

It appears to the Court that the existence of the Illinois case hindered the meet and confer process applicable to the discovery motions in this case. The discovery process is designed to be self-executing, and, as such, any initial deficiencies in discovery are designed to be addressed via the meet and confer process between the parties. It appears that the existence of the Illinois case, combined with this Court's imposition of a stay, acted as a wedge that prevented good faith meet and confer efforts. As such, in continuing the hearing on the four discovery motions to allow for formal opposition and reply briefing, the Court intends to ORDER both parties to engage in a formal meet and confer process. In particular, the Court notes that Plaintiff has indicated in his 'Response' that he 'has updated his discovery responses to the best of his ability...' (ROA 162, p. 2-4.) The Court also notes that Chicagoland has replied that Plaintiff's supplemental responses are deficient because, among other things, they are not even verified.

In continuing the hearing and ordering the parties to meet and confer prior to filing supplemental briefing, the Court now emphasizes for Plaintiff that certain things like basic verifications are deficiencies that should be able to be resolved swiftly. While the Court presently takes Plaintiff at his word that with the Illinois case in the proverbial rearview mirror he will engage in the instant case meaningfully with an effort at resolution, the Court also reminds that discovery is a formal part of the legal process – not an inconvenience to be set on the backburner while attempting to mediate or settle. In other words, while the Court commends Plaintiff's overall representation that he is attempting to pursue informal resolution of this matter, now that the stay of the instant case can be formally lifted, the Court will not tolerate basic discovery failures (like failure to verify responses) that are otherwise subject to ready and informal Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3091458 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: VALDIVIESO VS. GOSKY OCEANSIDE INC [IMAGED] 37-2022-00041719-CU-PO-NC resolution.

To that end, upon discussion with the parties, the Court intends to continue the hearing on the four pending discovery matters and set the following deadlines regarding said discovery: --order Plaintiff to meet and confer with Chicagoland regarding any outstanding discovery deficiencies by June 21, 2024 --order that Chicagoland may file a supplemental omnibus brief as to all four motions, limited to 10 pages, addressing what occurred in the meet and confer process and what discovery issues remain to be resolved with said briefing being due filed and served by Friday, June 28, 2024 --order that Plaintiff may file a supplemental omnibus brief in opposition to all four motions, limited to 10 pages, responding to the remaining issues set forth in Chicagoland's supplemental brief with said briefing being due filed and served by Friday, July 5, 2024 --set the hearing on the four discovery motions at issue for Friday, July 12, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Department N-31 Additionally, while the Court does not view the present discovery motions as warranting monetary sanctions due to the fact that 'other circumstances' (namely, the cloud that the Illinois action placed over this case as well as the stay that was imposed by this Court) make the imposition of a sanction unjust.

However, should the meet and confer efforts fail to resolve matters informally, Chicagoland is free to add-in any additional attorney fee amounts that it has incurred briefing these issues and attending these hearings. The message should be clear: unless there is a legitimate dispute about the legal obligation to produce certain discovery, Plaintiff should make all efforts to provide all requested discovery to Chicagoland in a quick and efficient manner, as the Court will impose monetary sanctions if the discovery delays in this case are attributable to resolvable issues like the production of unverified responses.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3091458