Case Number: SC120397    Hearing Date: August 01, 2014    Dept: P

TENTATIVE RULING – DEPT. P

AUG. 1, 2014 CALENDAR No: 1

SC120397 — ROBIN v. ROBIN BROS., et al.

PLAINTIFF’S THREE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND INSPECTION DEMANDS

Merits

Plaintiff Dee Robin (“Plaintiff”) has sued her former husband, Alan Robin (“Alan”) and his brothers, Edward Robin and Frederick Robin (“ERFR”), for alleged defalcations concerning an insurance policy investment LLC in which they all own an interest (defendant Robin Brothers, LLC (“the LLC”)) and concerning three San Diego condominium units jointly owned by Dee and Alan. Alan and the LLC have cross- complained against Dee for breach of the stipulated family law judgment which allocated Dee’s and Alan’s respective interests in the LLC and the condominiums, and for contribution based on the alleged breach. Plaintiff now moves to compel the LLC’s further responses to form and special interrogatories and to inspection demands.

The respective sides each accuse the other of discovery misconduct, and seek substantial sanctions. The opposing sides even dispute whether adequate met and confer efforts have taken place.

Upon review of the papers filed by the respective sides, the Court concludes that respective counsel are acting unreasonably with regard to discovery in this action. Although it is the Court’s function to resolve certain disputes between the parties, the Court expects counsel to do their utmost to resolve disputes such as that at bar in good faith before turning to the Court for resolution. In this regard, the Court anticipates that counsel are aware of the current strain on the resources and time of the Court and its staff in this unfortunate era of crippling budget cuts to the court system, and are aware of the need to cooperate in the discovery process. It appears that, notwithstanding numerous meet and confer letters going back and forth, counsel for the respective sides merely talked past one another.

Counsel are ordered to meet and confer this morning, in good faith, to all three motions in their entirety. They should ask the Courtroom Assistant if the Jury Room is available for that conference. The Court strongly encourages counsel to informally resolve the motions; counsel on both sides have good reason to be flexible, accommodating, and understanding. If counsel informally resolve the motions, the parties may put that agreement on the record on second call.

If the motions are not resolved and taken off-calendar by Plaintiff this morning, viz., if the parties cannot reach an informal resolution of the motions this morning, the Court may resolve any remaining disputes today or re-set the hearing on the motions.

In the latter circumstance:

All three motions are continued to September 4, 2014, in this department, to be heard concurrently with Plaintiff’s motion for protective order which is set for 8:30 a.m. that date.

Michael Rosenstein and James Eisenman are each ordered to meet and conferface-to-face, i.e., “knees to knees,'” on or before August 11, 2014, in good faith, to resolve all four of the currently-pending discovery motions. Any motion which is fully resolved is to be promptly taken off-calendar by the moving party via telephone call to the court clerk of this Department and via filing of a written notice directly in this department.

If the meet and confer does not resolve all four of the motions in their entirety, the aforementioned counsel are each to file directly in this department, on or before August 18, 2014, detailed declarations which state: (1) which issues remain unresolved notwithstanding the Court-ordered meet and confer; (2) why each issue remains unresolved; and (3) why counsel cannot informally resolve these issues without need for court intervention. Said declarations are not to contain legal argument.

Further, Michael Rosenstein and James Eisenman are each ordered to personally appear at the September 4 hearing (i.e., no telephonic appearance or appearance by associate or appearance attorney will be permitted) to meet and confer in the courthouse to fully resolve all four motions; they should bring with them whatever materials are needed to make this court-ordered meet and confer session productive and entirely successful. They are to be prepared to spend whatever time is necessary after the matter is first called to informally resolve the subject motions. Counsel need not personally appear if all four motions are taken off-calendar by the moving party by telephone call to the clerk of this department before 12:00 p.m. on August 18, 2014 or if at least 10 court days prior to the hearing the parties lodge directly in this department a stipulation and order re appointment of a discovery referee to determine the motions.

Counsel need to consider first working out disputes such as these between themselves, and save their use of court resources for those disputes that they truly cannot resolve after good faith efforts among themselves. The Court suggests that rather than continue to waste their own time, their respective clients’ money, and the time and the dwindling resources of the Court and its staff on discovery skirmishes, respective counsel should focus their efforts on informally resolving the subject discovery motions.

Other matters

Plaintiff filed three motions, each containing 14 exhibits; however, none of the exhibits were tabbed as expressly required, with good reason, by CRC 3.1110(f). Counsel are reminded of the need to comply with all applicable Rules of Court and statutes when serving and filing documents.

Counsel are now ordered to comply with Local Rule 3.26 and Appendix 3A [formerly Rule 7.12], which Local Rule is now made mandatory in this action. A violation of said rule may thus result in the imposition of sanctions under CCP 177.5 and/or CRC 2.30.

The nature and origin of the dispute underlying this action suggest that the respective parties are not likely to achieve satisfaction on any level by litigating this action. Counsel are encouraged to make their clients keenly aware of this reality – and to facilitate a full settlement of the action.

NOTICE

______ shall give notice of today’s rulings and orders 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.