Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 2021-01233700, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling
Please Note: The hearing on this matter has been changed to 8:30 A.M.
Motions to Compel
Defendant David Geier’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production (set one) is taken OFF CALENDAR.
Defendant David Geier’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories (set one) and special interrogatories (set one) is CONTINUED to 01/23/2023 at 8:30 am in Department N15.
Plaintiff Alicja Matak is ORDERED to prepare and serve further responses to form interrogatories (set one) and special interrogatories (set one) by no later than 11/14/2022.
Plaintiff Alicja Matak is further ORDERED to prepare and serve by no later than 11/14/2022, a meet and confer letter fully and completely responding to Defendant David Geier’s meet and confer letter dated 07/18/2022 with respect to each form interrogatory or special interrogatory discussed in the meet and confer letter for which Plaintiff does not provide a further response.
Counsel for Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendant David Geier are ORDERED to meet and confer in person or by video conference within two weeks of Defendant David Geier receiving the further responses to the form interrogatories and special interrogatories and the written response to the meet and confer letter.
if any issue remains outstanding for court intervention with respect to the form interrogatories and special interrogatories, Defendant Geier and/or Plaintiff Alicja Matak shall file and serve, no later than nine (9) court days prior to the continued hearing date, an amended Separate Statement pursuant to Rules of Court Rule 3.1345 that sets forth, among other things, the interrogatory response(s) at issue and the parties’ positions as to each issue. The Separate Statements may be prepared jointly or separately.
Defendant David Geier’s motion to deem as admitted and to compel further responses to requests for admission (set one) is DENIED.
All requests for sanctions are DENIED with respect to the motion to deem as admitted and to compel further responses to requests for admission (set one).
Defendant David Geier moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff Alicja Matak to form interrogatories (set one), special interrogatories (set one), and requests for production (set one).
Defendant Geier also moves to deem as admitted certain of Defendant Geier’s requests for admission (set one) and to compel furth responses to certain other of Defendant Geier’s requests for admission (set one).
Requests for Production
Pursuant to the Notice of Withdrawal of Defendant Donald Grier’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One filed 09/28/2022, Defendant Donald Geier’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production (set one) shall be taken off calendar.
Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories
“Civil discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention. [I]t is a central precept of the Civil Discovery Act ... that discovery be essentially self-executing . . . . ” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402, citations omitted.) To that end, a motion to compel further responses must attach a meet and confer declaration “showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Civil Proc. Code, §§ 2016.040, 2030.310(b), & 2031.310(b)(2).)
The meet and confer requirement is designed “to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order . . . . 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.” (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016, quoting Townsend v. Superior Ct. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435, quotations and citations omitted.)
There must be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) “[T]he law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Id.)
Here, neither the moving papers nor the opposition papers show that the parties conducted a reasonable and good faith meet and confer effort before Defendant Geier filed the motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories (set one) and special interrogatories (set one).
Rather, on 07/18/2022, counsel for Defendant Geier sent one meet and confer letter to counsel for Plaintiff. There is no evidence that counsel for Defendant Geier followed up on the meet and confer letter prior to filing this motion, even though counsel had been communicating by electronic mail in the weeks prior to 07/18/2022.
Counsel for Plaintiff contends that she never received the meet and confer letter prior to the filing of the motions. While counsel for Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff was wiling to provide further discovery responses and to meet and confer on the issue, there is no indication what, if anything, was discussed or if any further discovery responses were served.
While the court could grant or deny the motions and impose substantial sanctions, the court exercises its discretion to continue the motion with the expectation that the parties will be able to significantly narrow the scope of — if not resolve completely — the discovery disputes at issue here.
Pursuant to the court’s orders stated above Plaintiff shall provide further responses or a written response to the meet and confer letter for every form interrogatory and special interrogatory at issue in this motion to compel. Subsequently, the parties shall begin the further meet and confer process, in-person or by video conference.
Prior to the discussions, each party’s counsel shall review Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.010 et seq. — in particular, Sections 2030.010(b), 2030.030-2030.050, 2030.060, 2030.220, and 2030.240 – and shall take all necessary actions to ensure that their clients in full and struct compliance with all applicable provisions.
Counsel shall allot sufficient time to these discussions to enable counsel to “compare their views, consult, and deliberate,” and counsel shall make good faith efforts to resolve any disputes. Counsel shall also discuss how to treat the two sets of objections served by Plaintiff in response to the interrogatories.
To assist in these meet and confer efforts, the court notes that formatting objections to form interrogatories are not well taken, Defendant Geier sufficiently complied with Section 2030.050 to justify the propounding of more than 35 interrogatories, and that no statute requires that special interrogatories be “full and complete in and of itself,” (cf. Civil Proc. Code, § 2033.060 [requirement applies to requests for admissions only].)
Following counsel’s discussions, if any issues remain outstanding for court intervention, no later than sixteen (16) court days prior to the continued hearing date, Defendant Geier and/or Plaintiff shall file and serve by electronic mail an amended Separate Statement pursuant to Rules of Court Rule 3.1345 that sets forth, among other things, the interrogatory response(s) at issue and the parties’ position as to each issue.
The court reminds the parties and counsel that informally resolving the disputes contained in these motions will require both sides to take a critical view of their own positions and be ready and willing to compromise. If the court is required to rule on issues at the next hearing, the court will strictly apply the procedural requirements of the Civil Procedure Code and award the full amount of attorney’s fees as sanctions, if merited.
Requests for Admission
The Civil Procedure Code provides that where a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party “may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Civil Proc. Code, s 2033.280, subd. (b).)
The statute further states: “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Civil Proc. Code, § 2033.280(c).)
Defendant Geier moves to deem as admitted certain of Defendant Geier’s requests for admission (set one) and to compel furth responses to certain other of Defendant Geier’s requests for admission (set one).
However, it appears that Plaintiff’s counsel of record The Lipeles Law Group APC provided timely objections to each request for admission at issue. (See Brown Decl., Exh. 2) Plaintiff has not withdrawn or otherwise disavowed these responses.
The motion to compel is therefore denied.
Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.