Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2020-01155707, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff/Cross Defendant Jason Glantz (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant/Cross-Complainant Gates, Gonter, Guy, Proudfoot and Muench, LLP (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to Requests for Production, Set Three, Nos. 21-25 and Special Interrogatories, Set Three, Nos. 18-26, 37, and 39-105 on the grounds that Defendant’s responses are evasive, incomplete, and/or contain improper objections.

A demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to a demand for inspection if a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, or an objection is without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).)  A party may move for an order compelling further responses to interrogatories if the party deems an answer to be evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of the documents is inadequate, or an objection is without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a).)

Motions to compel further responses to either a demand for inspection or interrogatories must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a good faith attempt to reach an informal resolution of the issues presented.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2), 2030.300(b)(1).) 

Plaintiff’s counsel emailed counsel for Defendant on September 30, 2022, three court days before these Motions were filed, regarding Defendant’s discovery responses.  (Declaration of Benjamin Berger, ¶ 2.)  In that email, counsel asserted that Defendant had withheld “tons of information which is highly relevant to the valuation of the firm – including but not limited to the purchase of interests from other partners and documents/information germane to the partnerships income and expenses.”  (Id., Ex. 1.)  At the time the Motions were filed, no response to this email had been received.  (Id., ¶ 2.) 

The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to make a good faith attempt to reach an informal resolution of the issues raised in these Motions.  No detailed meet and confer letter was sent to Defense counsel and, as counsel’s email concedes, Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer were so delayed that the parties were left with insufficient time to complete any fruitful discussions. 

In light of the above, the Motions are CONTINUED to April 13, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in Department W15.  No later than nine court days before the continued hearing date, the parties are ORDERED to file a joint statement of all remaining issues, if any.  If no joint statement is filed, the Motions will be taken off calendar.

Plaintiff to give notice.