Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2023-00018361-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-06-21 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 20, 2024

06/21/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00018361-CU-PO-CTL GARLAND VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff's unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant's Further Responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories, Set One (ROA 40) is GRANTED.

The only interrogatory at issue in the motion is Form Interrogatory No. 15.1. Defendant City of San Diego's does not defend its asserted objections, which on their face appear meritless, and the 'response' is devoid of any facts and therefore is evasive and incomplete. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a)(1), (3).) Defendant is to serve a verified further response, without objections, on or before July 5, 2024.

Plaintiff's unopposed Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's [Requests for Production], Set One (ROA 36) is also GRANTED.

The only request for production at issue is No. 4, which asks Defendant to 'produce any WRITING about NOTICE of the CONDITION from 2016 to present.' Again, Defendant does not defend its asserted objection, the objection on its face appears meritless, and Plaintiff asserts, without contradiction, that the produced documents were improperly redacted to cover the names, phone numbers, and email addresses of potential witnesses, despite the fact that such information is contained in public records.

Defendant is to serve a verified further response, without objections, and unredacted copies of all responsive documents, on or before July 5, 2024.

Plaintiff asserts that during an October 11, 2023 informal discovery conference with Judge Frazier, the court ordered the parties to reach agreement on stipulating as to the admissibility of the records. (ROA 38 at 2:19-22.) The minutes merely state that the '[p]arties have resolved the dispute and will submit a stipulation and order.' (ROA 23.) The court does not make orders at informal conferences which, as judicially supervised meet and confer efforts, are akin to settlement conferences, and are not hearings on the merits. The minutes reflect that the parties reached a stipulation at the settlement conference that they agreed to submit to the court to incorporate into an order, not that any order was actually made. In any event, the court may not order parties to reach an agreement on an issue.

Once confirmed, this ruling shall be the final ruling of the court and no further written order is required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3047108  7