Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV28056, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV28056    Hearing Date: November 8, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Functional Products, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Goldenwest Lubricants, Inc.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and for Monetary Sanctions

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Functional Products, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order (1) compelling plaintiff Goldenwest Lubricants, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) to provide further responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three, numbers 1-29, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the amount of $2,500.

The court finds that Defendant has not submitted a meet and confer declaration that complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 and therefore denies Defendant’s motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)  

“A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)  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 . . . .  [Citation.]  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.”  (In re Marriage of Moore (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1275, 1293 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].)

First, while the court acknowledges that counsel for Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel on May 9, 2024 in an attempt to meet and confer, the court finds that the content of the letter does not show that Defendant made a reasonable attempt to informally resolve each issue presented in this motion because, after setting forth the alleged deficiencies in Plaintiff’s responses, Defendant’s letter (1) demanded that Plaintiff serve further responses only one day later, and (2) did not request that Plaintiff provide its position or that the parties engage in a discussion regarding its responses.  (Deagon Decl., Ex. C, pp. 2, 3.)  

Second, the court disagrees that Plaintiff did not provide a meaningful response to Defendant’s May 9, 2024 letter.  On May 10, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff responded and, although asserting that the letter was deficient, “suggest[ed] [that counsel] set up a conference call and a time to discuss [Defendant’s] requests and [Plaintiff’s] answers.”  (Deagon Decl., Ex. D, p. 1.)  Defendant did not provide evidence showing that its counsel (1) attempted to call Plaintiff’s counsel but was unsuccessful, or (2) engaged in a telephonic meet and confer conference pursuant to Plaintiff’s counsel’s suggestion.  Moreover, Plaintiff has presented evidence establishing that counsel never engaged in such a conversation.  (Bernard Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, 4 [“Kime Smith [Plaintiff’s former counsel] advised that prior to Defendant’s motion to compel being filed, he had attempted to set up a telephone conference with counsel for defendant to discuss the alleged discovery deficiencies.  However, no such conference was ever held”].)  Defendant does not dispute, in its reply, that counsel did not engage in a telephonic meet and confer conference with Plaintiff’s counsel.

Third, the court notes that Defendant’s counsel has stated that, in response to Plaintiff’s counsel’s email, Defendant’s counsel “submitted a proposed stipulation and protective order to facilitate both party’s production of documents[,]” which Plaintiff did not execute.  (Deagon Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.)  However, Defendant did not submit evidence or present adequate argument establishing that attempting to reach an agreement regarding the execution of a protective order relating to the production of documents shows that the parties engaged in a meet and confer process to resolve each issue presented by this motion, including the alleged deficiencies in Plaintiff’s written responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

Thus, for the reasons set forth above, the court finds that Defendant has not shown that it made a reasonable attempt to informally resolve each issue presented by this motion as required.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2); In re Marriage of Moore, supra, 102 Cal.App.5th at p. 1293 [“‘the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate’”].)

ORDER

            The court denies defendant Functional Products, Inc.’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents.

            The court orders plaintiff Goldenwest Lubricants, Inc. to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  November 8, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court