2012-00119362-CU-BT

Jei McLees vs. USA Coton de Tulear Club Inc

Nature of Proceeding:  Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories (Jeri McLees)

Filed By:  Bauer, Gina L.

On motion of the court, this matter is continued to July 8, 2014 at 09:00AM in this
department.  If the new date is inconvenient for any party, then counsel shall meet and
confer and inform the Department 54 clerk of their request for a different, subsequent
date.

Having reviewed the moving and opposing papers, and the numerous discovery
requests that the parties dispute, it is apparent to the court that counsel must resume
the meet-and-confer process in good faith before drawing upon the court’s limited
resources.  Counsel for the parties are thus ordered to resume the meet-and-confer
process in order to resolve or substantially narrow their discovery dispute.
Additionally, the parties are advised that the Court will in the future seriously consider
appointing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §639 a discovery referee who can
more quickly and efficiently respond to the parties’ needs.
In resuming the meet-and-confer process, the parties should be guided by the
observation(s) that: (1) Defendant USACTC’s counsel shall provide a declaration to
Plaintiffs stating why the additional special interrogatories are warranted, (2) with the
clarification that the term “You/Your” does not include Plaintiffs’ attorney, the objection
to this term lacks merit, (3) the objection that an interrogatory is argumentative and
assumes facts is not a proper objection, (4) Plaintiffs’ concern with their right to
freedom of association can be alleviated by a protective order, and (5) the Court is not
convinced that the filing of the fourth amended complaint superseded Defendant’s
discovery on matters set forth in the third amended complaint.

Counsel shall meet and confer in person by June 13, 2014.  After thoroughly meeting
and conferring in an attempt to resolve each and every issue that the motion currently
encompasses, and no later than June 27, 2014, counsel shall file a joint statement
indicating which discovery issues have been resolved, and which issues (if any)
remain outstanding.  For each outstanding issue, counsel shall set forth in the joint
statement their respective positions, citing the relevant facts and authorities.
Boilerplate or cut-and-paste arguments are strongly discouraged.

Counsel are reminded that this court does not have the resources to tend to and
resolve every discovery issue that could have and should have been resolved
informally. (See Young v. Rosenthal (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 96, 117 [“The very
purpose of an order to meet and confer is to obtain a negotiated resolution of a
discovery dispute without having to expend judicial time to sort out which party is
correct and what relief should be granted. What the court seeks is an agreement by
the parties which resolves the dispute”].)

Counsel are also reminded that this court has adopted, as part of its local rules, the
California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism, promulgated by the
State Bar of California.  In particular, the court refers counsel to Sections 4, 6, 9 and
10. The court is bound to impose monetary sanctions against any party who
unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further discovery\line responses,
absent a substantial justification or other reason making the imposition of sanctions
unjust.  The court may also impose sanctions for the failure to meet and confer in good
faith or otherwise misuse the discovery process. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§
2023.010-2023.030.)

The court will consider each side’s meet-and-confer efforts in deciding whether to
impose sanctions.