Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV40951, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV40951 Hearing Date: July 25, 2022 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion
to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for
Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Andrew Baracco
Resp. Party: Defendant
Shakey’s USA, Inc.
SUBJECT: Motion
to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One; Request for
Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Andrew Baracco
Resp. Party: Defendant
Shakey’s USA, Inc.
SUBJECT: Motion
to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for
Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Andrew Baracco
Resp. Party: Defendant
Shakey’s USA, Inc.
SUBJECT: Motion
to Compel Code-Compliant Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One; Request
for Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Andrew Baracco
Resp. Party: Defendant
Shakey’s USA, Inc.
SUBJECT: Motion
to Compel Deposition Testimony of Defendant’s Person(s) Most Knowledgeable;
Request for Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Andrew Baracco
Resp. Party: Defendant
Shakey’s USA, Inc.
The motions to compel further discovery responses
are taken OFF CALENDAR. The Court orders the parties to attend an IDC prior to
ruling on these motions. (See Department 34 Trial Orders, part VII(B).) The
Court orders the parties contact Department 34’s judicial assistant, Reyna
Navarro, at (213) 633-0154 to schedule this informal discovery conference.
I.
BACKGROUND
On November 5, 2021, Plaintiff Andrew Baracco filed a complaint against
Defendant Shakey’s USA, Inc. alleging Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act
(California Civil Code §§ 51, 52, et seq.).
On June 24, 2022, Baracco moved the Court to compel Shakey’s to provide
further responses to Baracco’s Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for
Production, Set One; and Form Interrogatories, Set One, and moved the Court to
compel the deposition testimony of Shakey’s Person(s) Most Knowledgeable.
On July 12, 2022, Shakey’s opposed Baracco’s five discovery motions.
On July 18, 2022, Baracco replied to Shakey’s discovery oppositions.
II.
ANALYSIS
A.
Legal
Standard
1.
Motion
to Compel Further
Motions to compel further responses to
discovery requests must always be accompanied by a meet-and confer-declaration
(CCP § 2016.040) demonstrating a reasonable and good faith attempt to
informally resolve each issue presented by the motion. (Id., §§ 2030.300(b),
2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b).) They must also be accompanied by a separate
statement containing the requests and the responses, verbatim, as well as
reasons why a further response is warranted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1345(a).) The separate statement must also be complete in itself; no
extrinsic materials may be incorporated by reference. (Id., rule
3.1345(c).) "In lieu of a separate statement required under the California
Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise
outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute." (CCP §
2030.300.)
“Unless notice of this motion is given within
45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified
response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding
party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party
waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (CCP §
2030.300(c).) Any motion to compel further must be filed within 45 days from
responses, supplemental responses, or a specific later date agreed to in
writing. (CCP §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), 2033.290(c).) Failure to file the
motion within the specified period constitutes a waiver of the right to compel
a further response. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th
1403, 1410.) The time period is mandatory and jurisdictional in the sense that
it renders the Court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than
to deny them. (Id.)
A motion to compel further responses to form or
specially prepared interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain: (1)
answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently
specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive
response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (CCP, §
2030.300(a).)
A motion to compel further responses to
requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause
justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).)
“To establish ‘good cause,’ the burden is on the moving party to show both: [¶]
Relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents
would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and [¶] Specific facts
justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial
preparation or to prevent surprise at trial.) [Citations.] [¶] The fact that
there is no alternative source for the information sought is an important
factor in establishing ‘good cause’ for inspection. But it is not essential in
every case.” (Edmon & Karnow, California Practice Guide: Civ. Proc.
Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) ¶ 8:1495.6.)
“For discovery purposes, information is
relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case,
preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation.] Admissibility is
not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might
reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation.] These rules are applied
liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33
Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)
“If ‘good cause’ is shown by the moving
party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections
made to document disclosure (the same as on motions to compel answers to
interrogatories or deposition questions).” (Edmon & Karnow, supra,
at ¶ 8:1496.)
2.
Motion
to Compel Deposition
Any party may obtain discovery,
subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including
any party to the action.¿(CCP § 2025.010.)¿A properly served deposition notice
is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to
testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying.¿(CCP §
2025.280, subd. (a).)
“If, after service of a
deposition notice, a party . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed
with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the
deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling
deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production . . . of any document .
. . described in the deposition notice.”¿¿(CCP § 2025.450, subd. (a).)¿The
motion must set forth both facts showing good cause justifying the demand for
any documents and a meet and confer declaration.¿(CCP § 2025.450, subds.
(b)(1), (b)(2).) “Implicit in the requirement that counsel contact the deponent
to inquire about the nonappearance is a requirement that counsel listen to the
reasons offered and make a good faith attempt to resolve the issue,” including
by rescheduling. (Leko v. Cornerstone Bldg. Inspection Serv. (2001)
86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1124.)
Good cause is construed
liberally; discovery justification is found where specific facts show the
documents are necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise
at trial. (Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Superior Court of Los
Angeles County (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 587; [8:787] Motion to Compel Answers,
Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 8E-15.) A lack of an alternative source for the
sought information is an important "good cause" factor, but it is not
essential. (Id. at 587-88.) A meet and confer declaration under CCP §
2016.040 “shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an
informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (CCP § 2016.040.)
B.
Discussion
Department 34 Trial Orders, part VII, subpart
(B) states:
“If there are
numerous or particularly complicated motions to compel further discovery, the
Court will order counsel to attend an Informal Discovery Conference prior to
ruling on the motion(s). The moving party is strongly encouraged to arrange for
an Informal Discovery Conference prior to the date for the scheduled hearing on
the motions.”
The Court finds that it would be beneficial
for the parties to raise the issues present in these motions at an informal
discovery conference with the Court in an attempt to resolve these issues.
III.
CONCLUSION
The motions to compel further discovery
responses are taken OFF CALENDAR. The Court orders the parties to attend an IDC
prior to ruling on these motions. (See Department 34 Trial Orders, part
VII(B).) The Court orders the parties contact Department 34’s judicial
assistant, Reyna Navarro, at (213) 633-0154 to schedule this informal discovery
conference.