Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2022-01262349, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs’ (Tammi Phan and Jennifer Gonzales) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (Motion) is CONTINUED to 10-10-23 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept C32.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides: “(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶](1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. [¶] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. [¶] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.[¶] (b)(1) A motion under subdivision (a) 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 propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.”

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.]”

As to the meet and confer efforts, the declaration in support of the Motion states, “I sent a meet and confer request via email on March 3, 2023. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of my email meet and confer request to counsel. [¶] On the same day, counsel responded by requesting a meet-and-confer correspondence, of which, in good faith, on March 6, 2023, I agreed to prepared and deliver for counsel’s review. Attached as Exhibit 4 are true and accurate copies of my exchange with opposing counsel. [¶] As part of the parties’ meet and confer efforts, it was agreed and/or stipulated that Plaintiff would have one (1) week following meet and confer efforts by phone to file and serve their motion(s) to compel. [¶] As requested, a written correspondence broadly addressing the discovery contentions by Plaintiffs was prepared and served on March 7, 2023. A true and accurate copy of the correspondence and service email are attached as Exhibit 5. [¶] Following several scheduling conflicts, the parties were finally able to meet and confer on March 20, 2023. A copy of the scheduling exchanges is attached as Exhibit 6. [¶] A recap of the discovery dispute was exchanged the same day. A true and accurate copy of the exchange of emails is attached as Exhibit 7. Notably, Defendant remained unwilling to supplement of amend any of his responses. [¶] On March 24, 2023, a final attempt to meet and confer via email was made. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a copy of my final meet and confer email attempt.” (Lam Decl., ¶¶ 9-15.)

In response to the meet and confer attempt, Defendant’s (Benjamin D. Abbott) attorney wrote, “. . . Counsel was not able to have a meet and confer phone call until March 20, 2023. Said call was relatively quick, as Plaintiffs’ counsel appeared to have not thoroughly prepared for the call, the only two issues discussed were Defendant’s objections Plaintiffs’ incorrect quotes of Defendant’s Cross-Complaint and Plaintiffs’ demand that more facts be provided as to nearly all of the interrogatories. The conversation ended with Defendant’s counsel asking that Plaintiffs provide legal authority as to the insufficiency of each response provided. Plaintiffs provided no such authority. [¶] On the same day as the March 20th call, Mr. Lam proceeded to memorialize the conversation via email, but instead of accurately reciting the conversation, Mr. Lam merely provided a list of interrogatories requesting Defendant supplement with additional facts. . . . [¶] “. . . Mr. Lam sent an email demanding supplemental responses on March 24, 2023, and without any discussion related to the sufficiency of the responses under the Code, Mr. Lam abruptly filed a motion to compel on March 27, 2023. . . .” (Janssen Decl., ¶¶ 7, 8, 10.)

The parties have not engaged in sufficient attempts to meet and confer regarding this Motion under Clement. The court orders the parties to engage in additional attempts to meet and confer that include a telephonic or in-person conference no later than 8-31-23. If Defendant agrees to provide further responses or produce additional materials, they shall provide verified further responses and produce such materials no later than 9-15-23. The parties shall file a joint statement no later than 9-22-23, not to exceed five pages, that (1) describes the parties’ attempts to meet and confer pursuant to this order, (2) identifies each discovery request that remains in dispute, and (3) lists all documents, by category, that have been produced. Any further responses served by 9-15-23 shall be attached to the joint statement.

Plaintiffs are to give notice.