Defendant Berrylicious’ Motion for Protective Order is DENIED based on the parties’ failure to meaningfully meet and confer.
Attorney Roth seems to take the position that her single letter to attorneys Kent and Wolfson dated September 30, 2013 with a “call me if you wish to discuss further” closer constitutes a meaningful meet and confer. Simply put, a single letter with no deadline and no follow-up attempts does not a meet and confer make.
The meet and confer rule is designed “to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order . . . .” McElhaney v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 285, 289. This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes. Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.
It is clear to the court based on plaintiff’s opposition to the motion that had the parties actually spoken (live, not via letter or emails), they would have resolved this issue rather than burden an already over-burdened court with this discovery motion. Plaintiff’s counsel has already suggested modifications to and deletions of some of the interrogatories. This is just the beginning. The court is confident that with further effort and discussion, the parties will be able to reach a resolution without court intervention.
The parties are ordered to engage in meaningful meet and confer efforts. The court suggests that the parties keep the following in mind:
1. The court agrees with the description of this case as “garden variety.” 181 special interrogatories in a case as simple as this one is excessive. Plaintiff must decrease the number of interrogatories if plaintiff hopes to avoid the imposition of sanctions. Plaintiff’s counsel has already begun to do so and the court is confident that one counsel speak they can come up with a mutually agreeable resolution.
2. Plaintiff’s counsel seems to enjoy reminding the court and parties of his 44 years practicing law. Given attorney Kent’s nearly half-century as a lawyer, the court would think that his vast experience would enable him to decrease the number of interrogatories in a simple case such as this one versus increase them. The number of interrogatories in this type of case is antithetical to the skills one who had been practicing law for so many years would hone and the judgment one would develop in designing a discovery strategy.
3. There is no substitute for sitting down together and working out discovery disputes. This is especially true when each Personal Injury hub court is handling 5300 cases each. If, after meaningful meet and confer efforts (meaning sitting in a conference room or participating in a telephone call or series of telephone calls and discussing the issues and devising ways to decrease the number of interrogatories), the parties are not able to resolve this issue short of a motion, the court encourages the parties to schedule an Informal Discovery Conference with the court.
The court declines to award sanctions to either party at this time. While the court believes that defense counsel failed to meet and confer prior to filing this motion, plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct is no more admirable. Apparently, plaintiff’s counsel only practices law for half of the year. When plaintiff’s counsel is in his office and in a position to review mail, pleadings, and prepare, he does not do so with the utmost attention to detail. The court appreciates plaintiff’s counsel’s admission that he overlooked defense counsel’s letter, however, the consequence of practicing law in such a way is that defense counsel’s request for sanctions will be denied. Had plaintiff’s counsel responded to attorney Roth’s letter before she filed the motion, presumably the motion would have been obviated.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Case Number: BC513724
Lawzilla Additional Reference:
Link to this page