Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV37654, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37654    Hearing Date: August 30, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiffs Dawn Sandorf and Steven Sandorf (“Steven”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Brooke Nicole Robertson Dinneen (“Dinneen”) and Whole Foods Market California, Inc. for damages arising from an automobile incident. Plaintiffs allege that they were in the process of entering their parked vehicle after shopping when Dinneen’s vehicle struck Plaintiffs’ car door, which caused Plaintiff Steven injury.

Defendant Dinneen now moves the Court for an order compelling Plaintiff Steven to provide further responses to the following discovery requests:

Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1: 

·        Propounded: January 6, 2023

·        Responded: May 10, 2023  

·        Motion Filed: May 26, 2023

Defendant Dinneen provides that Plaintiff Steven served unverified objection-only responses. Counsel for Dinneen avers that he attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel by requesting further responses, and Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to produce verified substantive supplemental responses.

In opposition, Plaintiffs’ counsel provides that verified and substantive supplemental responses were served to defense counsel on July 28, 2023, and that the motion is therefore moot. (Opp. Decl. Sandoval, ¶ 6.)

In reply, Defendant Dinneen contends that the responses are not moot, because “most of the further responses…are unverified responses.”

The parties dispute as to whether the supplemental responses were verified and whether it contained substantive responses. However, neither party provided a copy of the served July 28, 2023 supplemental responses, in either the opposition or the reply.

2.         Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”)

Per the Eight Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts effective October 10, 2022 (Filed September 20, 2022), ¶ 9E, “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.” Additionally, “Reserving or scheduling an IDC does not extend the time to file a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses.” (Ibid.) The purpose of an IDC is to avoid the necessity of a motion to compel, or to at least reduce its scope. The Eight Amended Standing Order further provides that parties are encouraged to stipulate to extend the deadline for filing a motion to compel further by 60 days to allow time to participate in an IDC and to informally resolve pending discovery issues.

An IDC was held on July 25, 2023, in which counsels conferred on the issues, and the issues were deemed resolved. (Min. Order, July 25, 2023.) Because supplemental responses were served after the IDC on July 28, 2023, the instant motion premised upon the May 10, 2023 discovery responses is moot; no sanctions are awarded. Defendant Dinneen must file a new motion to compel further and a new separate statement pertaining to the July 28, 2023 supplemental responses. Furthermore, Defendant Dinneen must schedule an IDC as required by the Court’s Standing Order Re: PI Court Procedures. The Court further notes that 45 days from July 28, 2023 is September 11, 2023. Unless the parties stipulate to a continue the deadline, Defendant Dinneen has until September 11, 2023 to file and must therefore move expeditiously. (CCP § 2030.300(c).)

The Court is hopeful the hearing on the motions to compel further will not be necessary. If the parties are unable to resolve all outstanding issues at the IDC, the parties must submit a joint statement of items in dispute at least two weeks prior to the continued hearing date. The joint statement must be a single document, with analysis by both parties, addressing each remaining issue.

Notwithstanding the above, it does not appear that a future motion to compel further responses will be necessary. At the August 29, 2023 IDC, the parties represented that all discovery issues have been resolved, save for a few minute details that are being worked out by the parties. The parties expect a full resolution of all the issues. The Court observed that the parties appeared to be working in good faith towards resolution of all the remaining issues. The parties also agreed that the IDCs scheduled for August 30, September 5, and September 7 are deemed resolved, the substantive portion of the currently scheduled motions to compel further are moot, and the only outstanding issue is whether sanctions should be awarded.

As stated above, after considering the circumstances of this case, the Court declines to impose sanctions at this time. The Court will continue to monitor the future cooperation between the parties in the discovery process and will consider the imposition of sanctions for future motions.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 29^th day of August 2023