Case Number: VC062680    Hearing Date: July 10, 2014    Dept: SEC

GONZALEZ v. THE HOUSE LOUNGE LLC
CASE NO.: VC062680
HEARING: 07/10/14

#4
TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff GEOVANNI GONZALEZ’s motions to compel further responses to his (1) special interrogatories (sets two and three) and (2) demands for production (sets two and three) are CONTINUED to July 24, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. in Department SE-C. C.C.P. §§ 2030.300, 2031.310.

This action arises out of an alleged battery of plaintiff by security at defendant THE HOUSE LOUNGE in August 2011. In large part, the subject discovery seeks the identification and contact information of the persons employed as security at the time of the subject incident. Plaintiff also seeks information as to whether certain named individuals were present at the time of the incident.

Defendant’s responses are insufficient. Its representation that Leon Security Company is no longer in business and that it is having difficulty locating the names of its employees is reasonable. Nonetheless, it is required to provide a response, to the extent it can, to the specific question posed (rather than a general response about not having “any information”). If defendant does not have specific information after conducting a reasonable and diligent search, it must so state in a verified response in accordance with section 2030.220. See Regency Health Serv. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496.

The demands for production pertain to insurance policies, which it appears were produced. There may be other additional policies, which are not protected from disclosure under a theory of attorney/client privilege or work product. Defendant’s objection on that basis is overruled. Plaintiff also seeks documents regarding Leon Security, which defendant claims do not exist. If defendant is unable to produce responsive documents after a diligent search, it must so state in a verified response. C.C.P. § 2031.230.

Many of plaintiff’s discovery requests, although worded differently, seek essentially the same information. Currently at issue are three sets of special interrogatories and three sets of demands for production. Defendant should not bear the burden of expense of providing duplicative responses to interrogatories, and is also not required to re-serve responsive documents which have already been produced. On the other hand, the Court is not satisfied that defendant has made diligent efforts to obtain the information or that it has responded to the extent possible.
The issues raised by the motions are straightforward and should not require court intervention to resolve. Because the discovery motions pertaining to sets one of plaintiff’s discovery, which raise many of the same issues, are outstanding, the Court elects to continue these motions to the July 24, 2014 hearing date already on calendar.

Counsel are ORDERED to meet and confer with respect to each of the items in dispute, and to make significant efforts to resolve the outstanding issues. After those efforts have been exhausted, if there are matters for which a court order is needed, the parties may file a joint statement, directly in Department SE-C, no later than July 21, 2014. (In its June 26, 2014 order, the Court ordered a joint statement to be filed by July 19, 2014 which is a Saturday. Counsel may combine the joint statement for all 6 motions and file it by the date herein).

The joint statement must set forth (1) each discovery request for which a ruling is requested, (2) defendant’s responses to date, and (3) each party’s respective position as to whether a further response should or should not be ordered.

The Court will address the issue of sanctions in its July 24, 2014 order, at which time in can determine each party’s justification for its position.