Case Number: SC109621    Hearing Date: September 02, 2014    Dept: P

TENTATIVE RULING – DEPT. P

SEPT. 2, 2014 CALENDAR No: 1

SC109621 — BARANTSEVICH v. CAMERON, et al.

BEAU LABORATORIES’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER DEPOSITION RESPONSES

What is the impact of the seven hour limit on this motion; see April 15, 2014 Minute Order at page 4.

The parties are to meet and confer this morning in good faith to resolve their dispute and then advise the Court of their status when the case is called.

In doing so, they should note that the questions at issue apparently were never asked and that that may be the result of the objection by plaintiff’s counsel that appears to have been made in anticipation of a line of questions. At this point, the Court cannot discern the questions and thus whether the assertion of privilege was appropriate.

The parties also will need to better explain the context of the privilege assertion as to the interpreter, if that in fact is in dispute.

The matter of sanctions also needs to be considered; why the moving party did not mention the seven hour limitation in its motion is unclear.

BEAU LABORATORIES’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS

There might be merits and demerits to each party’s position, but the initial question is why this is not an unpermitted motion for reconsideration.

Counsel must meet and confer in good faith to resolve this set of disputes and then report to the Court today. When the matter is called, each side will be asked to explain what now sought is covered and not covered by the orders previously issued in this case.

ORDER RE FUTURE DISCOVERY MATTERS

This is long-running, acrimonious business dispute which has spawned two other actions pending in this very courthouse, and is marked by two very different versions of the facts, with each side accusing the other of misappropriating business assets and related chicanery. The Court’s file in this action now spans 13 volumes. The Court has entreated counsel to litigate this matter in a reasonable manner – as did Judge Karlan – yet disputes which counsel should be resolving without further court intervention are again on calendar.

Due to the respective sides’ practice of bringing motion after motion, including innumerable discovery motions – without making sufficient efforts to resolve their differences, and now to apparently side-step court orders previously made, the Court is of the view that this is an appropriate case for the appointment of a discovery referee. See CCP section 639(a)(5).

In the event the parties agree, they may do so and prepare and lodge the appropriate stipulation and proposed order under CCP section 638, and do so by lodging the appropriate documents directly in this department by September 16, 2014. If the parties do not agree by that date, then the reference will be made under section 639. In either case the parties are asked to agree on the referee; the parties are to meet and confer as to the names of three potential referees. Absent such agreement, by September 16, 2014, each party is to submit to the Court, with copies to all other parties, the names of 5 persons acceptable to that party. The Court may appoint a person as referee whose name appears on any one or more of such lists, or not.

The Referee will be asked to make a recommendation as to which party[ies] should pay the fees and costs of the reference.

NOTICE

________ shall give notice of today’s rulings and timely file proof of service thereof, pursuant to CCP 1019.5 and CRC 3.1312.