Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 20CHCV00743, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20CHCV00743    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 5-2-23

Case # 20CHCV00743

Trial Date: 10-23-23 c/f 7-25-22 c/f 1-10-22

FURTHER DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Anthony Ogden

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Sara Delpasand

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Anthony Ogden owns certain real property in a planned community identified as Bella Vista in Porter Ranch. Plaintiff alleges that adjoining homeowners/possessors of land/neighbors continually allow their dogs to micturate and defecate on his premises, even after multiple requests to cease this activity, which has led to confrontations.

On November 24 and 25, 2020, Plaintiff, pro se, filed a verified complaint and verified first amended complaint for Trespass to Land and Nuisance. Defendants Stephen Isenberg, Shauna Israel, Jennifer Price, Ryan Makhani and Sara Delpasand answered on December 28, 2020, then filed a verified answer on February 4, 2021. On February 26, 2021, Plaintiff dismissed Gary Tarpinian.

On May 19, 2021, the court granted the motion to strike punitive damages without prejudice. No amended pleading was filed.

On July 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement with Jennifer Press. A request for dismissal of Press was filed on July 16, 2021. On September 1, 2021, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for relief from waiver of discovery objections. On January 11, 2022, the court granted Plaintiff leave to amend to file a second amended complaint for Trespass to Land, Nuisance, and Breach of Covenants Codes And Restrictions (CC&Rs). A verified second amended complaint was filed on January 21, 2022.

On April 12, 2022, the court overruled the demurrer to the second amended complaint, granted the motion to strike punitive damages with prejudice, and denied the motion to strike the claim for injunctive relief. Defendants answered the complaint on April 22, 2022.

RULING: Denied.

Plaintiff Anthony Ogden moves compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents as to Sara Delpasand. The motion challenges the objections, contends the response regarding the inability fails to comply with code requirements, represents that promised documents remain outstanding, and at a minimum, a privilege log should be drafted.

Defendant Sara Delpasand in opposition challenges the motion on the lack of any meet and confer effort, and a lacking separate statement. Delpasand requests sanctions. Plaintiff in reply reiterates the evasiveness of the objections and demands a privilege log. Plaintiff also maintains “good faith” meet and confer efforts. Finally, Plaintiff denies any requirement to submit a separate statement.

The timeliness of the motion remains undisputed. The parties agreed to extensions for responses. [Declaration of Paul Deese, Ex. 2.] (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) The motion, however, lacks demonstration of a sufficient meet and confer effort other than a vague reference of an already drafted motion to compel further responses. [Deese Decl., Ex. 2: e-mails.] (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).).) Responding counsel denies any effort all together to narrow the issues. [Declaration of Christine Lee.] The court finds the pre-drafted referenced motion(s) to compel, which as addressed further below, indicates a predetermined intent to bring the motion, rather than an effort to truly resolve the issues.

Even considering the existence of a valid meet and confer effort, the court finds the lack of a separate statement and summary arguments in said pre-drafted motion renders the meet and confer a pretense to the intended filing of up to a dozen of such motions (see below). The court declines to consider the issues presented without a separate statement. (Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1345 (a)(3), (b)(2), Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(3).)

Further, a motion to compel compliance with a promise for production is not properly brought as a motion to compel further responses.

The court therefore denies the motion on procedural grounds as to any actual further responses due to the lack of a sufficient meet and confer and separate statement, and substantive grounds as to any items where promised production is sought rather than actual further responses in that a motion to compel further responses is not the proper means of raising this argument. Sanctions imposed against both Plaintiff and counsel joint and several for $250. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) Sanctions payable within 30 days.

As referenced above, the court notes that Plaintiff reserved or scheduled one dozen (12) motions to compel further responses from May 1 through May 18, 2023. Seven are only reserved, and five are currently set for hearing. While only five appear on calendar, given the sheer volume of motions within a slightly over two week period of time, and the factual basis of the underlying action itself, the court will consider the next motion on May 3, 2023, at least a minimum for procedural compliance, but reserves the right upon each and every scheduled motion on the court docket to set an OSC re: Appointment of a Discovery Referee for ALL discovery matters, potentially including matters taken under submission following oral argument.

The court also reserves the right to impose sanctions on each and every unsuccessful motion brought by any party where sanctions are warranted. Further, any additional motions or subsequent pleadings demonstrating potential efforts to seek correction of procedural defects, including arguments offered in reply(ies), may also trigger the setting of an OSC re: Appointment of Referee. Should the court set an OSC, ALL motions will be continued or taken off-calendar pending the hearing with potential referral of all pending requests to the referee.

Trial remains set for October 23, 2023.

Plaintiff to give notice.