Judge: Michael Small, Case: 22STCV26700, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: 22STCV26700    Hearing Date: January 30, 2025    Dept: 57

  The Court is not posting tentative rulings on any of the 8 discovery motions that Plaintiff filed seeking to compel further responses from the Defendants.   In the main, the Court's sense is that the Plaintiff's position is the better one as to most, but not all, of the disputes encompassed within the motions. 

The Court does not quite comprehend why it took Defendants two years to get to this point.  Be that as it may, even taking out of the equation the documents that the Defendants have committed to produce (and thus needs to produce forthwith), there are still many (to put it mildly) disputes over the requests for production alone.   There are likewise many disputes as to the other forms of discovery encompassed by the motions (RFAs, FROGs, and SROGs.)  At the hearing today, the Court will discuss with counsel the best way forward to resolve all of the disputes in a timely fashion so that the case can get to trial this year.    One possible way forward is for the parties promptly to agree to a discovery referee.  This is a big case with lots at stake.  It seems that the parties could have, and should have, asked the Court a while back to appoint a discovery referee.  It is not too late for that.   On reflection, the Court probably should not have acceded to the parties' multiple requests to keep kicking the discovery motion can down the road.   If the parties eschew the discovery referee option, then the Court will have to find the time on its crowded calendar -- perhaps over four days, reflecting the four types of discovery at issue -- to tackle the disputes, resolve them, and issue rulings.