Rosa Cervantes vs. JTS Communities, Inc.
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion for Protective Order
Levangie, Michael J.

Specially appearing Defendants Blue Lake Rancheria, et als motion for a protective order is once again continued on the Court’s own motion to Tuesday, February 18, 2014 at 2 p.m. in this department.

This motion was originally set to be heard on December 16, 2013, and was continued to this date for further meet and confer efforts with respect to the jurisdictional discovery which Plaintiffs had been given leave to propound given the Court’s finding that the parties had yet to engage in a serious meet and confer effort and that such efforts could potentially resolve the issues presented by this motion thereby conserving judicial resources.

Specifically, Court ordered the parties to “conduct further meet and confer efforts to discuss the specific discovery requests at issue and other potential resolutions to the instant motion, specifically, the incremental discovery suggested by Specially Appearing Defendants in the moving papers.” The parties were also ordered to file a “joint statement indicating which discovery issues have been resolved, and which issues (if any) remain outstanding. For each issue that remains the parties shall set forth their respective positions.”

The Court here expresses its frustration with the response received from the parties. Indeed, the parties were to file a “joint statement” and the Court instead received separate filings from both parties. Each side filed a separate document titled a “joint statement” though it is clear that each statement is not a “joint statement.” Indeed, the filing from the Specially Appearing defendants includes a voluminous “supplement to joint statement” based on their contention that Plaintiffs failed to adequately cooperate in providing a joint statement in a format which would allow them to include their final positions on the discovery requests. Further as seen from the chart that was provided in each purported “joint statement”, it appears that the further meet and confer efforts consisted of a single letter between the parties, far short of the meet and confer efforts contemplated by the Court in its December 16, 2013, order. However, there is no discussion of the extent of such efforts in the various “joint statements” though they facially appear minimal at best. From what the Court can tell Plaintiffs sent a letter on December 16, 2013, and Specially Appearing Defendants sent a response on December 20, 2013.

In reality, the parties have made the Court’s task significantly more burdensome as they failed to file a single “joint statement” as ordered by the Court. Indeed, the “supplement to joint statement” which purports to set forth Specially Appearing Defendants final position on the discovery requests suggests that the parties have not even discussed this purported final position. The parties’ efforts in regards to the Court’s December 16, 2013 order were entirely unacceptable.

As a result, the Court again continues the motion and orders the parties to conduct further meet and confer efforts. The Court expects the parties to engage in focused and directed meet and confer efforts, not simply a single letter from each side. Further, the parties are again ordered to file a “joint statement”, meaning a single statement that they collaborate and agree upon which details the specific meet and confer efforts conducted by the parties, including the dates and length of such efforts, and again indicating which discovery issues have been resolved, and which issues (if any) remain outstanding. For each issue that remains the parties shall set forth their respective positions. The Court fully expects a single “joint statement.” The parties are not permitted to file separate statements. The joint statement shall be filed no later than February 7, 2014.

The parties are again reminded that this Court does not have the resources to tend to and resolve every discovery issue that could and should have been resolved informally. (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 shall be granted. What the court seeks if an agreement by the parties which resolves the dispute”].)

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