Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22STCV36344, Date: 2024-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36344    Hearing Date: July 29, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 7-29-24

Case # 22STCV36344

Trial Date: 11-12-24 c/f 10-21-24 c/f 8and rour-19-24 c/f 7-22-24 c/f 6-3-24

FURTHER DOCUMENTS/ADMISSIONS/SPECIAL INTERROGATIRES

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, 1016 Industries

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Giavanna Papasavvas

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motions to Compel Further Responses

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff VAV Plastics, Inc. manufactures plastic bottles. Plaintiff also offers custom design services. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Arminak Solutions dba KBL Cosmetics was a customer. Between August 3, 2020 and October 22, 2020, Defendant ordered $2,540,000 in manufactured products. The order also required the development of special molds, plus pallets for delivery, which Plaintiff alleges was separately invoiced for $11,000 and $1,036 ($12,306 total).

Plaintiff alleges “most of the product ordered” has been delivered, but Defendant refuse to take the remaining portion of the order and ordered the cessation of future production.  Plaintiff alleges a remaining balance due of $4342,540.21. Finally, Plaintiff also alleges an entitlement to reimbursement for special equipment acquisitions totaling $54,337.91. The total sum for the bottles, molds and pallets, and equipment amounts to $408,914.12.

On February 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed its complaint for Breach of Oral Contract, and Common Counts. On June 4, 2020, Defendant answered and filed a cross-complaint for Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Declaratory Relief, Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose, and Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage. On August 2, 2021, Cross-Complainants filed a first amended cross-complaint for Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Declaratory Relief, Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose, and Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

RULING: OSC re: Discovery Referee.

Defendant, 1016 Industries scheduled four concurrent motions to compel further responses. While the court specially set the subject motions, it appears the parties continue to file more and more motions to compel further responses even well after the trial date, and ask the court to adjust the parties’ latest developments, including the latest rejected stipulation. A review of the history of the parties’ discovery disagreements shows multiple previously filed motions, ongoing disputes, and at least four prior trial continuances, at least in part, presumably due to said discovery disputes.

The court favors robust discovery thereby allowing the best prosecution and defense during the adjudication of all actions presented. The court however also declines to schedule Independent Discovery Conferences due to an already impacted calendar. Any and all law disputes must be addressed by law and motion with applicable new motion limits instituted. Given the reviewed history of the disputes, and voluminous and complexity level of the disputes, the Court hereby sets this matter for an OSC re referral to a discovery referee.

“When the court in any pending action determines that it is necessary for the court to appoint a referee to hear and determine any and all discovery motions and disputes relevant to discovery in the action and to report findings and make a recommendation thereon.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 639, subd. (a)(5).) Appointment requires a court finding of “exceptional circumstances.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 639, subd. (d)(2).) Absent agreement of all parties, courts may not make blanket referrals, except “in the unusual case where a majority of factors” favor reference, including: “(1) there are multiple issues to be resolved; (2) there are multiple motions to be heard simultaneously; (3) the present motion is only one in a continuum of many; (4) the number of documents to be reviewed (especially in issues based on assertions of privilege) make the inquiry inordinately time-consuming. (Taggares v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 94, 105.) “Where one or more of the above factors unduly impact the court’s time and/or limited resources, the court is clearly within its discretion to make an appropriate reference.” (Id. at 106.)

Again, the court understands the prior use and perhaps reliance on the IDC system. The court also faces impacts from the recent ransomware attack and ongoing impacted calendars preceding the operations shut down now further exacerbating the situation. The court is also mindful of the November 12, 2024, trial date.

The court therefore sets an OSC re: Discovery Referee for August 16, 2024 at 8:30 a.m., with the purpose of allowing the parties to consider their options while still allowing for potential appointment well before the trial date. If the parties wish to stipulate in advance of the hearing, the court invites such an agreement. The parties may consider criteria such as costs of the respective referee, allocation of costs for any discovery involving third parties, authority to award sanctions and/or attorneys by the referee, availability, etc.

The court can and has set expedited referee referrals in the past, and therefore strongly encourages the parties to check availability. The court will also accelerate the referee report review in order to facilitate resolution of the claims. If the parties refuse to stipulate, the parties may submit any opposition to the appointment no later than nine (9) court days before the August 16, 2024 hearing date—due date of August 5, 2024. Any briefs shall be no more than five (5) pages of points and authorities, plus any declarations. The court will issue a tentative ruling following a review of the briefs, if applicable. The four motions are placed off-calendar pending the OSC and subject to either presentation before the referee or reset on the court calendar.

Defendant to give notice.