2017-00220374-CU-MC

Kimberly Stitt vs. Training Toward Self Reliance, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Deposition of PMK Re: Training

Filed By: Garcia, Stephen M.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of defendant Training Toward Self-Reliance, Inc.’s (“TTSR”) “Person Most Knowledgeable” (“PMK” (although Code of Civil Procedure §2025.230 actually refers person(s) “most qualified”)) is on the court’s own motion CONTINUED to 4/18/2018 at 9:00 a.m. in this department, as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06, and does not provide the correct address for Dept. 53/54. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise him/her of Local Rule 1.06 and the court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing, along with the correct address for Dept. 53/54. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing in person or by telephone.

This lawsuit arises from the sexual assault of one developmentally disabled person by another, both of whom were in a program operated by TTSR. Plaintiff served a notice for deposition of TTSR’s PMK on 20 different topics and requested the production of 53 different categories of documents. The deposition took place on 1/23/2018 and on that same date, plaintiff sent a single letter consisting of three paragraphs to TTSR’s counsel which detailed plaintiff’s concerns about the deposition relative to a handful of the 20 topics and a few of the 53 requests for production. Although TTSR responded via email on 1/26/2018, it appears plaintiff made no additional meet-and-confer efforts prior to filing the present motion on 2/13/2018.

At the outset, the court must remind all counsel that given the number of motions such as this which must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved informally. This serves to highlight the critical need for counsel’s legitimate, reasonable and good faith meet-and-confer efforts before filing any discovery motion. Although it dealt with a motion to compel answers to deposition questions, the decision of Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431 is instructive in that it clarifies that the meet-and-confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather it “requires…a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Id., at 1438.) This is particularly true in light of the finite judicial resources which are available to address the volume of law and motion matters presented to this court.

In light of the foregoing, the parties shall resume their meet-and-confer efforts relating to the issues presented by this motion and to file no later than 4/6/2017 a joint statement which clearly identifies each individual discovery item at issue in this motion and states whether the parties’ have resolved their dispute over each item. For each item which has not been completely resolved, the joint statement shall clearly identify/explain the nature of the remaining dispute requiring resolution by the court and clearly describe each party’s last position with respect to the remaining dispute so as to assist the court in resolving this matter. The parties are encouraged to format this joint statement in the manner which will allow the court to most efficiently assist

the parties in resolving the remaining disputes.

If the parties are able to resolve all issues raised by this motion, moving counsel shall promptly notify the court that this motion may be dropped from calendar.