Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV05919, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05919    Hearing Date: July 20, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On October 25, 2022, the Court granted in part Plaintiff Michael Matavousian’s motion to compel further discovery responses.  The Court ordered Defendant FCA US, LLC to produce certain documents within ten days.

On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions because Defendant had not produced any additional responsive documents.  Plaintiff noticed a May 11, 2023 hearing date.  On May 4, 2023, Defendant filed a late declaration in opposition to the motion.  Thirty-six minutes later, Plaintiff filed a timely reply.

According to Defendant’s counsel, Defendant had 30,000 pages of documents for production after a protective order was filed.  (Fadeff Decl. ¶ 5.)  “As a result of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect [counsel’s] office failed to prepare and forward a Protective Order to Plaintiff’s counsel and the supplemental confidential documents were not produced.”  (Fadeff Decl. ¶ 5.)  Counsel discovered the error on April 28, 2023, when drafting an opposition to the sanctions motion.  (Fadeff Decl. ¶ 5.)  Counsel declares that the 30,000 pages of documents will be produced after a protective order is signed and filed.  (Fadeff Decl. ¶ 6.)

A protective order was entered on May 8, 2023.

In light of the above the Court could not determine what, if any, discovery dispute remained unresolved, so on June 22, 2023, the Court continued the hearing and ordered supplemental briefing.

Defendant’s counsel’s July 13, 2023 declaration states that since they produced the 30,234 pages of confidential documents, they have not heard from Plaintiff’s counsel regarding this issue and assumed that Plaintiff’s counsel was satisfied with the document production.  (Fadeff Decl. ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff’s counsel July 13, 2023 declaration states that Defendant has complied with producing responsive documents for RFP Nos. 15, 18, 21, 22, 59, and 60, but not for RFP Nos. 32 and 61.  (Theophil Decl. ¶ 8.)  Plaintiff’s counsel does not provide a copy of Defendant’s May 4, 2023 supplemental responses with either the July 13, 2023 declaration or earlier May 4, 2023 reply and supplemental declaration.

Because Plaintiff does not provide this information and has not attempted to meet and confer with Defendant about the issues (see Fadeff Decl. ¶ 8), the motion is DENIED IN PART.  The Court will not compel Defendant to comply with the October 25, 2022 order under these circumstances.  (See Motion at p. 17.)

It appears that Plaintiff’s March 28, 2023 motion for sanctions was the catalyst for Defendant preparing a Protective Order and providing further responses.  Therefore, the request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.  Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions of $1,000.00 to Plaintiff within ten days.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 20th day of July 2023