Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2022-01254056, Date: 2023-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s (Nicholas Sanders Trustee of the Joseph L. And Kathleen H. Sanders Family Trust Dated January 28, 1986) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, filed on 2-21-23 under ROA No. 76, is CONTINUED to 9-26-23 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C32 for the reasons set forth below. The court sets a status conference regarding discovery on 8-11-23 at 10:00 a.m. in Department C32.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides, “(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. [¶] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. [¶] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. [¶] (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following: [¶] (1) the motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. [¶] (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. . . [¶] (c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”

Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1293 (Clement), states, “ ‘The Discovery Act requires that, prior to the initiation of a motion to compel, the moving party declare that he or she has made a serious attempt to obtain “an informal resolution of each issue.” [Citations.] This rule 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. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]”

The declaration in support of the Motion states, “Finding the responses insufficient, I emailed Ethan Logan’s attorney, Laura Petrie, on February 9, 2023, with a request that we discuss the responses. She had switched law firms and had not yet assumed the role of attorney of record from her new firm and advised that she could not respond as Ethan Logan’s attorney for that reason. A true and correct copy of our email exchange is attached as Exhibit C. [¶] I then emailed attorney George Hampton, making the same request – on February 15, 2023. A true and correct copy of our email exchange is attached as Exhibit D. I received no response, leaving me with no option other than filing this motion.” (Berger Decl., ¶¶ 3 and 4; Emphasis in declaration.)

The declaration in opposition to the Motion states, “On July 5, 2023, I telephoned Mr. Berger and spoke to discuss the Motion and to resolve the objections as to Category 3 requests. Mr. Berger had been engaged in trial for several weeks and could not discuss the issues at that time, but indicated the possibility of doing so within a few days if his trial was completed. As of the date of this declaration, I have not received a call from Mr. Berger to meet and confer. [¶] Thus, there is no substantial justification for the imposition of sanctions when the objections could have been resolved by clarifying and narrowing the requests so as to not be overbroad and seek financial information of third parties.” (Petrie Decl., ¶¶ 18 and 19.)

Based on the above declarations, the court finds that the parties have not made a serious attempt to meet and confer regarding the discovery requests at issue in this Motion.  Therefore, the court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer telephonically, by way of video conference, or in person to attempt an information resolution of the discovery issues raised by this Motion no later than 8-21-23.  The parties shall file a Joint Statement no later than 9-18-23 describing the parties meet and confer efforts, and to identify each discovery request that remains in dispute.  The parties shall not submit further briefing without the permission of the court.

Court Clerk is to give notice.