Case Number: SC121077 Hearing Date: May 02, 2014 Dept: P

TENTATIVE RULING – DEPT. P

MAY 2, 2014 CALENDAR No: 3

SC121077 — MICROS HOLDINGS v. TOLT, et al.
[R/T BS516399]

PLAINTIFF’S FOUR MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF DEFENDANTS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

In this action for breach of lease, Plaintiff has moved to compel further discovery responses from defendants Nikki Tolt and ACT Mediation, Inc. (“Defendants”). The Court will grant the motion.

The subject responses served by Defendants failed to comply with the Code in numerous respects. However, that may be because the subject discovery is voluminous, and it was propounded with only five days to respond rather than thirty – at the time Plaintiff propounded the discovery and defendants responded thereto, this action was one for unlawful detainer. Nevertheless, the Court questions why Defendants failed to later supplement their responses under oath.

All four motions are granted.

Defendants are each to serve full and complete, Code-compliant, comprehensive, verified responses to all of the special interrogatories listed in the moving CRC 3.1020 separate statements, without objection, on or before May 12, 2014. Each response is to be self-contained. The further responses provided pursuant to this order are to be clearly captioned as “COURT- ORDERED FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.” That will distinguish them from the initial responses.

Defendants are each to serve verified further responses to all inspection demands listed and reproduced in the CRC 3.1020 separate statements, in full compliance with CCP 2031.210 – 2031.250, without objection save for those based upon the attorney-client or work-product privileges, on or before May 12, 2014. Each response is to be self-contained. All responsive documents not already produced are to be produced concurrently, including but not limited to those in electronic form. The further responses provided pursuant to this order are to be clearly captioned as “COURT-ORDERED FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS.” As to any document demanded as to which objection is made on the ground of attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine, the objecting defendant is to concurrently serve a privilege log sufficiently specific for the reader to determine whether each withheld document is privileged. See, CCP 2031.240(c)(1); Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 201. All other objections are overruled.

Defendants and their counsel are sanctioned, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $2,820.00 plus filing fees of $120.00), to be paid by certified check at Plaintiff’s counsel’s office on or before May 12, 2014.

The Court questions why counsel failed to informally resolve this dispute. Counsel need to consider first working out disputes such as this one between themselves, and save their use of court resources for those disputes that they truly cannot resolve after good faith efforts among themselves. Indeed, the Court expects all counsel and their clients to comply with the discovery provisions of the Code without the need for Court intervention; intervention should be reserved for matters which good faith efforts cannot resolve.

Counsel are now ordered to comply with Local Rule 3.26 and Appendix 3A [formerly Rule 7.12], which by this order is now made mandatory in this action.

Plaintiff is to serve and lodge a proposed order pursuant to CRC 3.1312.

TRIAL SETTING

Is there any reason why final status conference and trial dates should not be set today?

If not:

FSC: ____, 2015 at 8:45 a.m.
Trial: ____, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.

MSC must be completed by 60th day prior to FSC.
Parties are to comply with LASC Rules regarding trial preparation.

NOTICE

Plaintiff shall give notice of today’s rulings and timely file proof of service thereof, pursuant to CCP 1019.5 and CRC 3.1312. A copy of this ruling is to be attached thereto.