Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV12586, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12586    Hearing Date: November 6, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

SHAUNT MIRIKIAN, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV12586 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER 

 

   

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

November 6, 2023  

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff, Shaunt Mirikian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (“Defendant”) for injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained when the door to Defendant’s facility came off its hinges and pulled Plaintiff to the ground. After the Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) held on February 7, 2023, Plaintiff served supplemental responses. Defendant now moves the Court for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to the following discovery requests: 

Form Interrogatories, Set No. 1:  

  • Supplemental Responses: February 17, 2023 

  • Motion Filed: April 5, 2023 

Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1 

  • Supplemental Responses: February 17, 2023 

  • Motion Filed: April 5, 2023 

 

The motions were initially heard on July 18, 2023, wherein the parties were ordered to meet and confer to discuss the issues. (Min. Order, July 18, 2023.) Further, the Court scheduled an IDC for July 24, 2023, and continued the motions to October 6, 2023. (Ibid.) 

On July 24, 2023, the Court found the conference did not qualify as an IDC and that another IDC would need to be scheduled. (Min. Order, July 24, 2023.) The parties were to submit a joint statement of the outstanding issues. (Ibid.) On July 24, 2023, Defendant filed notice of the outstanding issues.  

 

II. 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.   

The Court notes that an IDC is currently scheduled for November 17, 2023. The parties are ordered to participate in the already scheduled IDC, as required by the Court’s Standing Order Re: PI Court Procedures.  

Moving Party is also ordered to continue the Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses using the online reservation management system, at least 3 weeks after the IDC.  

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. 

 

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 3rd day of November 2023 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court