Case Number: SC120499    Hearing Date: July 09, 2014    Dept: P

TENTATIVE RULING – DEPT. P

JULY 9, 2014 CALENDAR No: 3
[Updated 7-8-14]

SC120499 — RODRIGUES v. STEELE, et al.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Notwithstanding the Court’s prior admonitions (and an order making compliance with local rules of civility mandatory in this action), respective counsel continue to litigate this action in a manner which has resulted in needless law and motion and proceedings.

Plaintiff responded to the subject interrogatories and inspection demands with boilerplate, bad-faith objections. Plaintiff then agreed to supplement the responses. Defendants, in writing, expressly gave Plaintiff until February 14, 2014 to supplement the responses. Nevertheless, they served and filed the motions at bar on February 13, 2014, viz., before the supplemental responses were due – and, in any event, without a courtesy call to Plaintiff to inquire as to the status of the supplemental responses. Plaintiff served the supplemental responses on February 18, 2014. [Moving party has not filed any Reply.]

The motions, which would not have been necessary had Plaintiff complied with his discovery obligations in the first place rather than served obstreperous “responses”, are moot.

Motions are denied with prejudice in their entirety.

Other matters

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s moving and supplemental briefs filed in support of his motion for sanctions set for hearing on July 11, 2014.

The motions, when read in combination, are unclear as to exactly what Plaintiff seeks, and the basis/es for that/those requests; indeed, the motion, as supplemented, presents a moving target and is defective on its face — the filing of only a supplemental memorandum does not comply with the statutory requirements for a notice motion. At present, the only motion concerns a failure to pay sanctions; plaintiff concedes those sanctions were paid albeit late. Further, to ask for non-monetary sanctions based on the failure to pay previously-ordered sanctions is improper; an order to pay sanctions is enforceable by collection only. Further, as the Court noted in its June 19, 2014 Minute Order, asking for contempt sanctions under the circumstances at bar, as Plaintiff has done, is over-reaching. If Plaintiff’s counsel maintain that monetary and/or nonmonetary sanctions remain warranted, they will need to re-draft and re-serve the motion; that motion will need to be self-contained. The foregoing is not to in any manner imply that the Court opines that a renewed sanctions motion is warranted.

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions set for July 11, 2014 is advanced to this date and denied without prejudice. If Plaintiff renews the motion for sanctions, attorneys Steve Wasserman and Kathryn Marshall, on the one hand, and Philip Boesch and Benjamin Johnson, on the other hand, are each ordered to personally appear at the hearing thereon. No telephonic appearance or appearance by associate or appearance attorney will be permitted. The Court finds that a personal appearance would materially assist in the determination of the proceedings. CRC 3.670(e)(2).

If respective counsel continue to insist, despite the Court’s prior orders and admonitions, on making discovery a tough, trying, and expensive war of attrition, the Court will order the preparation of a comprehensive joint discovery plan and a discovery conference (which all counsel will be required to personally attend) to discuss that joint discovery plan.

[Defendants’ MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (Set 1) remains on calendar for July 11. Are the issues limited to production of the stock certificates and stock register of Steele Aviation and the amount of sanctions, if any? Can the matter be advanced to and resolved today?]]

NOTICE

______ shall give notice of today’s rulings and timely file proof of service thereof, pursuant to CCP 1019.5 and CRC 3.1312.