SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

A motion¿to compel further responses to requests for production “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).)¿ The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.)¿  

“The Discovery Act requires that, prior to the initiation of a motion to compel, the moving party declare that he or she has made a serious attempt to obtain 'an informal resolution of each issue.” (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016) (internal quotations and citations omitted).  This rule is designed “to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order....”  (McElhaney v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 285, 289.)  “This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.”  (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.)   

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant never sent to Plaintiff a meet and confer letter outlining the specific issues of Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s propounded discovery. (Opp. Int. Decl. Mackay, ¶ 6.) The Court reviewed Defendant’s supporting exhibits in connection with her motions, and found no evidence that Defendant met and conferred with Plaintiff over each interrogatory and request for production she found deficient prior to bringing the motions to compel.  

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant failed to meet and confer with Plaintiff in a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of the issues presented in the motion.  

 

b. 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.) 

Here, the Court finds Defendant complied with the Standing Order in scheduling and attending an IDC on May 30, 2023. On May 30, 2023, Plaintiff did not participate at the IDC. As there was no appearance or contact by Plaintiff, the IDC requirement for Defendant to bring her motion to compel further was met. (Min. Order, May 30, 2023.)   

In opposition, Plaintiff avers that on May 30, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel made several attempts to connect and contact the Court at no avail. (Opp. Int. Decl. Mackay, ¶ 8.) Furthermore, Plaintiff contends that the proof of service of the IDC was defective, because it was emailed to a personal email address sassanmackay@yahoo.com, when it should have been addressed to the business email address smackay@commercelaw.net. (Id. at ¶ 7.) However, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not object to Defendant serving written discovery to Plaintiff’s counsel’s personal email address; to avoid this argument of defective service hereinafter, Plaintiff must clarify to Defendant which email to use on the service list.  

Accordingly, in light of Plaintiff’s attempt to join the IDC and in conjunction with Defendant’s failure to meet and confer prior to bringing her motions, Defendant’s motions are DENIED. The parties are ordered to participate in another IDC, to be set on a mutually agreeable date.  

Defendant is ordered to use the Court’s Reservation System to continue the hearing on the motions to a date at least three weeks after the IDC. If Defendant fails to continue the motions as ordered, the Court may deny or take the motions off calendar.  

 

  

 

The Court is hopeful the hearing on the motions 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 five court days prior to the continued hearing date.  The joint statement must be a single document, with analysis by both parties, addressing each remaining issue.   

 

3. Monetary Sanctions 

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response.  (CCP §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h).)  

Because the Court denied Defendant’s motions, no sanctions are awarded.