2016-00205620-CU-PO

Nassir Nassirian vs. Violet Hold

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1. Form 2. Special 3. Admissions, Sets 1 (Violet

Filed By: Collins, Andrew J.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant Violet Holding, LLC dba Lincoln Meadows Care Center’s (“LMCC”) further responses to form and special interrogatories and to requests for admissions is DENIED IN ITS ENTIRETY, as follows.

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties must at the time oral argument is requested notify the clerk and opposing counsel of the specific discovery requests that will be addressed at the hearing. Counsel are also reminded that pursuant to local rules, only limited oral argument is permitted on law and motion matters. ***

This is an elder abuse case and trial is currently set for 12/3/2018. On 6/6/2017 LMCC served by mail its verifications to its earlier responses to plaintiffs’ form and special interrogatories and requests for admissions. Then, 49 days later, plaintiffs purported to commence the requisite meet-and-confer process with a 19-page letter sent by email at 11:02 a.m. on 7/25/2017, which letter demanded a response from LMCC by the close of business that same day. Despite denying LMCC any real opportunity to meet-and-confer on these discovery requests, LMCC agreed to extend to 9/15/2017 the deadline for plaintiffs’ motion to compel and then on 8/18/2017 provided plaintiffs with a seven-page letter responding to the 7/25/2017 meet-and-confer letter, which at least in part agreed to provide some further responses to plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Based on the Collins Declaration filed in support of this motion, it appears that plaintiffs made no further effort to meet-and-confer before ultimately filing the present motion to compel on the last possible day, 9/15/2017.

The court will deny this motion in its entirety due to plaintiffs’ complete failure to engage in a serious, meaningful and good faith attempt to meet-and-confer on the specific issues raised by this motion. First, plaintiffs’ delay of 49 days to commence the meet-and-confer process required under the Civil Discovery Act is unexplained and inexcusable under the circumstances. Second, the 19-page letter sent on 7/25/2017 was clearly not intended to facilitate any meaningful discussion in an attempt to resolve the parties’ dispute and avoid the need for judicial intervention but rather was a hollow, superficial effort to create the illusion of satisfying the meet-and-confer prerequisite before filing this motion. Only because LMCC voluntarily agreed to extend the deadline for this motion did LMCC even have any opportunity to participate in the meet-and-confer process in the form of its 8/18/2017 letter but as pointed out above, it appears plaintiffs made no further effort to meet-and-confer before ultimately filing the present motion to compel on the last possible day, 9/15/2017. Plaintiffs’ complete disregard of the substantive requirements of the meet-and-confer process effectively precluded LMCC from having any opportunity to resolve this discovery dispute without

consuming finite judicial resources. As this court has often explained, 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.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1438.) Plaintiffs’ efforts here were patently insufficient and for all these reasons, the present motion must be and hereby is denied in its entirety.

Plaintiffs may contend they pursued the meet-and-confer process diligent after the filing of this motion but Code of Civil Procedure §2030.300(b) and §2033.290(b) both expressly require that a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and requests for admissions be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2016.040. The Collins Declaration filed in support of this motion does not satisfy this requirement as it plainly demonstrates plaintiffs did made neither a reasonable nor a good faith attempt at informally resolving each and every issue presented by this motion before filing it, apparently ignoring completely PHG’s responsive letter on 8/18/2017.

Although not necessary to this ruling, it is worth noting that the court has also reviewed and considered the individual interrogatories and requests for admissions along with LMCC’s objections and responses thereto and finds that nearly all of LMCC’s objections were appropriately asserted in response to the poorly-crafted and objectionable discovery requests. In particular, the court rejects plaintiffs’ suggestion that LMCC’s objections to the form interrogatories are without merit and thus, they will not under the circumstances here be overruled. Regardless, LMCC appears to have provided appropriate responses to all or nearly all of the form interrogatories and plaintiffs have not shown otherwise. With respect to the special interrogatories, LMCC’s objections are not in light of the nature of the individual questions at issue lacking merit as claimed by plaintiffs and plaintiffs also failed to provide sufficient justification for this court to compel further responses to the special interrogatories. Finally, while LMCC did object to each of plaintiffs’ requests for admissions, LMCC also provided a proper response to all or virtually all of them and in most cases, with an outright denial which is permitted by Code of Civil Procedure §2033.220(b). Accordingly, this court is not persuaded that it would here be appropriate to compel further responses from LMCC and particularly on the questionable grounds advanced in plaintiffs’ separate statement in support of this motion.

While the court is otherwise inclined to award LMCC monetary sanctions for having to oppose this unjustifiable motion to compel, the declaration filed in support of LMCC’s opposition fails to provide the requisite information on which to base such an award.

Thus, the court must deny LMCC’s request for monetary sanctions against plaintiffs and their attorneys in this case.