Case Number: BC531654    Hearing Date: August 22, 2014    Dept: 73

GUZMAN, et al.
Plaintiff,

vs.

PLS CHECK CASHIERS, etc., et al.

Defendants.
Case No.: BC531654

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE PLAINTIFF GUZMAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NO. 1

Hearing date: 8/22/14

Counsel for plaintiffs/moving party: Joseph Farzam; Nazo Koulloukian (Farzam Law Firm)
Counsel for defendant/opposing party: Timothy Long; Byron Lau (Orrick, etc.)

Plaintiff Carlos Guzman’s motion (filed 7/21/14) to compel further responses to request for production (RFP) of documents, set no. one against defendant PLS Check Cashiers of California, Inc., and request for sanctions and costs in the amount of $3,060; defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $3,060 (or 2920?)

As to RFP, set 1:

Chronology:
4/11/14 RFP, set 1 (34 categories), served on defendant
5/16/14 Defendant mail-serves verified responses, all objections. Without waiving the objections, some responses agreed to produce “non-privileged, non-confidential/private/proprietary documents in its possession, custody or control that appear responsive” to a request. Other responses objected to producing confidential or proprietary information without a protective order, “about which Defendant is willing to negotiate.”
5/29/14 Defendant emails proposed protective orders, using court-provided forms. (Lau declaration, ¶14; Ex. G)
6/16/14 or 6/18/14: Atty. Koulloukian for plaintiff writes first meet and confer letter, addressing all 34 categories (except #8 and #15), giving a deadline of 6/25/14. [#8, 15, 16, 24 are not included in this motion to compel]
6/20/14 Defense counsel Lau’s efforts re protective order (Lau decl. ¶17, 18)
6/23/14 Protective order discussions (LASC format)(Lau, Ex. J)
7/17/14 Kolloukian agrees to sign protective order if defendant gives 2 week motion-filing extension, but defendant refuses to extend motion deadline date, now giving this reason: “Because nearly two months had already elapsed since I first sent PLS’s proposed order to Plaintiff’s counsel, I declined to grant Plaintiff yet another extension.” (Lau decl. ¶22)
7/18/14 Defendant serves 132 pages of documents. (Lau, Ex. M)
7/21/14 Motion deadline date as extended (7/7/14 was original deadline)
7/21/14 Motion filed, with sanctions requested.
8/8/14 Defendant serves 200+ pages of documents, unverified. (Lau, Ex. N)
8/11/14 Defendant mail-serves opposition (untimely) and requests sanctions. TENTATIVE RULING RE THIS REQUEST: Sanctions are denied as improperly noticed. CCP § 2023.040 and service thereof untimely based on the untimely opposition, considered a late-filed paper.

TENTATIVE RULING regarding the required meet and confer: The efforts to do so are inadequate, but the lack of compliance falls on the defense. Defendant’s proffered reason for declining a two-week extension to file the instant motion might have avoided the motion entirely, or at least, focused its scope and lessened the work required for all concerned. Plaintiff agreed to sign the protective order. The extension requested as a condition was not unreasonable given plaintiff’s ignorance of what was actually going to be produced pursuant to the protective order, nothing having been produced as of that extension request. Defendant claimed not wanting to provide piecemeal responses without a protective order, but that is precisely what it did in providing the two unverified document productions. Because defendant’s sole reason to deny an extension was inadequate, the court infers some last-minute gamesmanship (with a deadline only 4 days later, with only a Friday and an intervening weekend to boot) occurred.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer further regarding the protective order to narrow the scope of the motion and advise the court in a joint (2-page maximum) statement regarding remaining disputed items. No further argument will be entertained regarding each side’s position unless it is a new argument based on subsequently occurring events. In that event, the court will require a declaration and category-by-category explanation, to be filed and served simultaneously by 12 noon on a date to be determined.

If the parties decline to meet and confer as outlined above, the court will hear argument and take the matter under submission.