Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV27716, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV27716    Hearing Date: August 9, 2022    Dept: 27

19STCV27716 DAMIAN ACEVES vs MICHAEL ANTHONY SIU, et al.

Hearing on Ex Parte Application for Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery Without Informal Discovery Conference; or In the Alternative, For Expedited Information Discovery Conference

August 9, 2022.  Ruling by the Court

Defendant misapprehends the full purpose of the IDC and the utility of the IDC hearing to the management of cases before the PI Hub Courts. The parties are required to appear for an IDC to enable the Court to discuss with the parties their inability to resolve discovery disputes without Court intervention.  The parties may or may not find this useful, but the Defendant here insufficiently considers the need the Court may have to attempt every effort to obtain resolution of discovery disputes without the need for an already overly burdened motions calendar to accommodate an otherwise resolvable dispute. Moreover, the IDC provides the Court with an opportunity to weigh the good faith each party has brought to the attempt to resolve discovery disputes, which may later inform the Court's ruling on a request for sanctions. The Seventh Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective May 16, 2022 (Revised 5/4/2022) (the "Order") clearly states "PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC)."  But it also alerts parties that reserving or scheduling an IDC does not extend the time to file a Motion to Compel further, so the motions need to be timely filed, the IDC date reserved, and the motion hearing date reserved. Lest there be any doubt as to the importance the Court gives to the IDC requirement, the Order states that "[a] party's failure to stipulate to extend the time to bring [a motion to compel further] so that an IDC may be held may subject the parties and/or counsel to the imposition of sanctions."  In writing that, "[g]iven Plaintiff’s wholesale refusal to discuss its responses to Defendant’s discovery, Defendant did not schedule an informal discovery conference ('IDC') before filing its Motion to Compel, believing it was clearly futile," Defendant has not fully considered the purpose of the IDC requirement in the Order.  Defendant further asserts, "[w]hen Defendant’s Motion came on for hearing on July 21, 2022, the Court—providing Plaintiff the benefit of any doubt as to their willingness to confer—removed the Motion from calendar to permit an IDC to be conducted Defendant is mistaken.  The Court has provided no party the benefit of the doubt.  The Court is merely enforcing the Order's requirements with respect to IDCs. 

The IDC scheduled for October 28, 2022, remains on calendar.  In order to accommodate the IDC, the hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery responses currently scheduled for September 2, 2022, is continued to November 18, 2022. The October 20, 2022, trial date is continued to December 16, 2022, The Final Status conference is continued to December 2, 2022. 

The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer about the outstanding discovery requests and, not later than October 21, 2022, the parties shall file with the Court a joint declaration stating that the parties have met and conferred and indicating for how long and in what manner that meeting occurred. The declaration shall be accompanied by a Joint Statement of the parties (not a traditional separate statement) consisting of a four column document set up as follows: the first column will identify the number of the discovery request; the second, the text of the discovery request; the third, the text of the response; and the fourth, a brief two bullet-point statement, one from each party, as to why a further response should or should not be compelled.