Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: Fine Consulting Services v. Manley's Boiler, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Timothy Bovard’s 8 discovery motions are continued to 2/3/23 at 10 am.

The court sets an OSC re appointment of discovery referee for 2/3/23 at 10 am.

Unless a party shows good cause otherwise, the court will appoint a discovery referee to hear the pending discovery motions and all future discovery disputes in this case concerning these parties.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 639, subd. (a)(5); see also Taggares v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 94, 101-105.)

The parties are invited to file and serve briefs of 7 pages or less addressing the appointment of a discovery referee by no later than 1/25/23.  The briefs should include recommendations on who the court should appoint, even if the party contends no referee is necessary.

There are multiple issues to be resolved over multiple, inordinately time-consuming motions.  While two motions regarding RFAs raise overlapping issues, the other six motions raise separate issues. 

The special interrogatories have 120-page (Manley) and 188-page (Fine Consulting) separate statements.  The motion against Manley addresses #7-12, 28-30, 31-33, and 36-131.  The motion against Fine Consulting addresses #7-142.

The form interrogatory motion against plaintiff Manley addresses #2.6, 2.7, 2.11-2.13, 4.1-4.2, 7.1-7.3, 9.1-9.2, 11.1, and 17.1 (as to RFAs #2-20, and 22-30).  The form interrogatory motion against plaintiff Fine Consulting addresses #7.1-7.3, 9.1-9.2, and 17.1 (as to RFAs #2-20, 22-30, and 33-35).

The document demand motions address 20 demands, 10 directed to each plaintiff.

In the meantime, in an effort to narrow the issues and encourage further meet-and-confer on the disputed issues, the court will offer some guidance.

First, Plaintiffs’ Rule of 35 objections are not well-taken.  Defendant supported his RFAs and special interrogatories with declarations of necessity.  (See Berthold Decls. (ROA #199, 201, 210, 212) at Ex. 1.)  Plaintiffs did not “promptly” move for a protective order.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.040, subd. (a), 2030.090, subds. (a), (b)(2), 2033.040, subd. (a), 2033.080, subds. (a), (b)(2).)  And plaintiffs’ own papers show the excess RFAs and interrogatories are justified by the complexity of this case.  (See, e.g., Charleston decl. ¶¶ 1, 7-16, 19.)

Second, plaintiffs have substantiated their objection that the term “incident” as defined in the form interrogatories is vague and ambiguous.  This case involves several different contracts and the individual defendants are alleged to have performed a number of different acts in various capacities. (See, e.g., SAC ¶¶ 3-9, 13, 14, 16, 19-29; see also Charleston decl. ¶¶ 1, 7-16, 19.)

The clerk shall give notice.