Matter on Calendar for Friday, April 25, 2014, Line 1, Plaintiff’S Motion To Compel Further Responses To Discovery Requests And Production Of Documents Pro Tem Judge Geoff Howard, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.
812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion.
Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge.
If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge.
If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email.
If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept.
302 Judge, who will then decide the motion.
If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge.
The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Plaintiff moves to compel responses to special interrogatories, form interrogatories and requests for production.
The motion was initially calendared for hearing on October 17, 2013.
It was then taken off calendar pending bankruptcy hearings.
By order dated April 7, 2014, the Court granted plaintiff’s ex parte application to re-calendar the original motions, and set them for hearing on April 25, 2014.
At the same time, the Court ordered courtesy copies delivered to the Court with exhibits separated by exhibit tabs.
The parties did not update the pleadings or provide tabbed exhibits in advance of the April 25 hearing.
During the pendency of the original briefing, defendant provided supplemental responses, narrowing the issues in dispute.
The Court now grants in part and denies in part the motions, as follows.
There are two primary remaining disputed issues.
The first is whether defendants’ communications with her brother, a lawyer, are privileged during the time prior to the brother’s formal representation of defendant in this matter.
The Court finds those communications are privileged and denies the motions to the extent they seek those communications.
The second issue is whether information about a company called VegiWeb is subject to discovery.
The Court finds that the discovery aimed at VegiWeb is excessive, and generally not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and therefore denies the motions to the extent they seek discovery about VegiWeb.
The exception to this ruling relates to a small number of discovery requests that seek information about cross-use of employees or funds between VegiNews and VegiWeb.
Accordingly, the motions are denied except as to Special Interrogatories 91, 98, 102-103, 127-128, 131-132, and 139-140.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to geoff.
howard@bingham.
com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number.
If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling.
The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested.
=(302/JPT)