Judge: Michael D. Washington, Case: 37-2023-00035623-CU-CO-NC, Date: 2024-07-09 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 13, 2024

06/14/2024  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  Contract - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00035623-CU-CO-NC INDEPENDENT NATURAL FOOD BROKERS, LLC VS LIVING WELLNESS PARTNERS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 02/05/2024

The hearing on the discovery motions pending in this matter shall consist of a meet and confer in the presence of the judge. An in-person appearance is required by both parties. Remote appearance will not be allowed.

This matter came on-calendar previously on May 10, 2024 for hearing on four discovery motions. At that time, this Court admonished the parties for failing to meet and confer in good faith and continued the motion to give both parties more time to engage in good faith meet and confer efforts. Since that time, defendant Living Wellness Partners LLC dba Buddha Teas (the Tea Company) appears to have made reasonable efforts to meet and confer and dropped or resolved some of the issues. As a result, it appears that two of the four motions pending have been resolved in their entirety: the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions. As such, both of those respective motions are VACATED as moot and DENIED as to monetary sanctions on grounds that good faith meet and confer efforts should have resolved the motion before it was brought and thus other circumstances make the imposition of a monetary unjust.

As to the remaining discovery, while it appears that the Tea Company has continued to meet and confer in good faith, plaintiff Independent Natural Food Brokers LLC (Plaintiff or the Broker) appears to be standing by some objections based on vagueness and ambiguity of words like 'gross sales' and 'calculated,' inter alia. It seems to the Court that although objections can be made to preserve them for trial, to the extent that these dictionary-definable words might be causing vagueness or ambiguity as applied to the questions being propounded, good faith meet and confer efforts should have resulted in Plaintiff proposing definitions that would provide the necessary clarity. In that sense, it now appears that Plaintiff has not been approaching the meet and confer process with good faith and in earnest.

However, the Court is also mindful of an argument made by the Tea Company that 'Plaintiff evades the question by arguing the entire case.' (ROA 59, p. 3:20-21.) The Court finds this framing somewhat persuasive, as, again, Plaintiff failed to propose meaningful definitions that would clear up the alleged vagueness and enable it to answer – leading to some indication that Plaintiff was more interested in finding bases to not respond (by 'arguing the entire case') rather than in providing an answer to the issue that the discovery requests were attempting to get at. On the other hand, the argument cuts both ways, as it seems to the Court that some of the requests at issue may get to the heart of the case – matters that are clearly in contention. By way of example, it is one thing to request that party admit the type of accounting method that it uses (i.e. 'admit that you utilize the accrual method for your accounting'), but it is quite another to request that a party admit the ultimate legal determination that that Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3128864 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  INDEPENDENT NATURAL FOOD BROKERS, LLC VS LIVING  37-2023-00035623-CU-CO-NC method is improper or wrongful (i.e. 'admit that the accounting method you utilize is unlawful'). As such, in the meet and confer process that will take place in the presence of the judge, the appropriateness of the requests will depend, in part, upon whether the requesting party is truly seeking factual admissions, or is seeking admissions of ultimate legal conclusions.

With the above in mind, once the discovery questions are substantively resolved, the parties may argue the appropriateness of any monetary sanctions – limited solely to the two remaining motions – and the Court will consider those requests in light of the reasonableness of the parties during the meet and confer in the presence of the judge.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3128864