2010-00079435-CU-OE

Jessica A. Golden vs. Pacpizza, LLC

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents Nos. 58 & 60

Filed By: Bulaon, Cat N.

The Court has received the parties “Joint Report With Response to Plaintiffs Motion to
Compel” filed May 29, 2014, which, for the second time, lacks the “joint” participation
required by Court order.

Counsel are reminded that 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.” Young v.
Rosenthal (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 96, 117.

Counsel have failed to timely meet and confer, failed to even acknowledge having read
and understood each other’s positions, and failed to reach any clear agreement on
any aspect of the discovery dispute.

Because this is the fourth hearing date calendared for two discovery motions, originally set for April 2, 2014, as to which the parties continue to fail to meet and confer to
clarify their positions; the Court on its own motion concludes that the appointment of a
Discovery Referee would be appropriate. C.C.P., sec. 639, et seq.

The Court finds that this is the unusual case where a majority of factors favoring
reference to a referee are present. These include: (1) there are multiple issues to be
resolved; (2) there are multiple motions to be heard simultaneously; (3) the present
motion is only one in a continuum of many; (4) the number of documents to be
reviewed (especially in issues based on assertions of privilege) make the inquiry
inordinately time-consuming. In making its decision, the trial courts need consider the
statutory scheme is designed only to permit reference over the parties’ objections
where that procedure is necessary, not merely convenient. (C.C.P. section 639(e).)
Where one or more of the above factors unduly impact the court’s time and/or limited
resources, the court is clearly within its discretion to make an appropriate reference.
Taggares v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 94, 105-106, C.C.P., sec. 639.

Counsel for the parties shall either submit a Stipulation to the appointment of a
specified referee, together with a declaration as to his or her hourly rate and
willingness to serve, or each party shall submit declarations with lists of the names of
three (3) potential referees each for each party, together with their hourly rate(s) and
confirmation that the proposed referees are available and willing to serve as a court
appointed referee, not later than Tuesday, June 24, 2014.

The Court will thereafter appoint a discovery referee to provide his report and
recommendation as to this dispute, and any further discovery disputes. The referee’s
fees shall be paid equally by both parties, absent a report and recommendation in the
alternative from the referee.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.