2013-00147015-CU-DF

Luis Franco vs. Farmers Rice Cooperative

Nature of Proceeding:    Motion to Enter onto Property and to Inspect, Test, Measure,

Filed By:   Lockshin, Larry

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Enter onto Property and to Inspect, Test, Measure,
Photograph and/or Videotape Objects and Things is CONTINUED, to Wed., July 30,
2014 for further meet and confer.

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint alleges that he was wrongfully terminated by the
Farmers Rice Cooperative for making safety-based complaints.   He also alleges that
he was defamed and terminated for “keying” defendant Gregg Huwes’ car at work.

It appears that plaintiff’s requests for inspection may be overbroad and burdensome to
defendant. On a wrongful termination claim, plaintiff need not prove the truth of his
protected safety complaints as an element of his causes of action. The Court is not
inclined to permit plaintiff to drive two vehicles into the middle of a busy 23 acre
industrial rice processing site to create a reenactment video. The Court will not
consider evidence submitted for the first time in reply, as opposing party has been
denied the opportunity to address it.

It does not appear that counsel have adequately addressed each other’s positions, or
the proposed compromises, on each of the issues raised by the plaintiff’s motion and
defendant’s opposition.

No later than June 30, 2014, counsel shall meet and confer regarding the issues
raised in plaintiff’s motion.

No later than Monday, July 21, 2014, counsel will file and serve a joint declaration
describing in detail their meet and confer efforts and which, if any, issues remain
unresolved and why.  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.

The court will decide the parties’ requests for monetary sanctions largely on the basis
of the joint declaration.

If the above hearing date is inconvenient, counsel may meet and confer on a later
hearing date, then seek court approval of it.