17-CIV-01123 SEAN STOUT, et al. vs. THE SWINGIN’ DOOR, et al.

SEAN STOUT ALBERT L. THUESEN, III

THE SWINGIN’ DOOR

2. motion to compel RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT WARREN CHAPMAN TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE; REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE; AND JUDICIAL COUNSEL FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court admonishes Defendants’ counsel Geoffrey Macbride and the law firm of Murphy Pearson Bradley & Feeney and Plaintiffs’ counsel James O’Brien and the law firm of Coit Law Group for violating CRC Rule 3.1110(f) (requiring hard tabs between exhibits). (R.R. v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal. App. 4th 185, 205 (Rules of Court have the “force of law”).) The Declarations of O’Brien in support of each motion contain 16 exhibits across 280 pages. The opposing Declarations of Geoffrey Mcbride contain 21 exhibits across 80 pages (Warac) and 24 exhibits across 90 pages (Chapman). Failure to comply with Rule 3.1110(f) imposes an unreasonable burden on the Court. Although some papers were fax-filed, the obligation to comply with Rules of Court rests ultimately with the party or party’s counsel. Counsel are directed to comply with all Rules of Court in all filings.

The Court orders the motion off calendar.

Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith. The January 22, 2018 letter from Mr. O’Brien to Mr. Macbride consists primarily of citations to law and general statements that Defendant’s objections were boilerplate and evasive. Most of the letter does nothing to address the objections, clarify the discovery requests, or suggest the manner in which Defendants might supplement their responses.

Defendants responded with Letter from Macbride to O’Brien, February 1, 2018, but much of that letter merely pointed out that Mr. O’Brien’s opening letter provided insufficient information to which Defendant could respond. Plaintiff’s counsel terminated the meet/confer with his letter of February 2, 2018. These communications fail to satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 (moving party must show a “reasonable and good faith” attempt at resolving “each issue” presented by the motion).)

The Court declines to deny the motion for failure to meet and confer. A sampling of the responses at issue show that many, but not all, of Defendant’s responses are deficient. Denying this motion would reward Defendant for serving evasive responses; granting the motion would reward Plaintiff for failing to fulfill his meet-and-confer obligations.

Further, Plaintiff’s Separate Statement fails to comply fully with Rule 3.1345(c)(5) (“If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, . . . the other request and the response to it must be set forth).) Plaintiff has set forth the other request, but not Defendant’s response. (See, e.g., Special Interrogatories 14 & 16; Form Interrogatory 17.1)

In addition, the Court cannot determine the extent to which the motion might be moot. Defendants contends that they served supplemental responses to some of the discovery on February 23 and 27, 2018. (See Opposing Separate Statements). Defendants cite to Exhibits 25, 26, 27, and 28 as evidence, but the Opposing Declarations of Macbride contains only 20 exhibits relating to Warac’s Opposition and 24 exhibits relating to Chapman’s Opposition.) The Court cannot determine whether Defendants supplemented their responses or to which requests.

The Court orders:

1. The parties shall engage in a good faith effort to resolve the issues informally. Plaintiff shall initiate the efforts.

2. If any matters remain unresolved, then Plaintiff may file a motion as to those matters. The deadline for a further motion is April 13, 2018. The deadline may be extended in writing signed by Defendants’ counsel or by court order upon showing of good cause.

3. All papers filed in this Court shall comply with the California Rules of Court.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.

3. motion to compel RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT warac corporation TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE; REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE; AND JUDICIAL COUNSEL FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court admonishes Defendants’ counsel Geoffrey Macbride and the law firm of Murphy Pearson Bradley & Feeney and Plaintiffs’ counsel James O’Brien and the law firm of Coit Law Group for violating CRC Rule 3.1110(f) (requiring hard tabs between exhibits). (R.R. v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal. App. 4th 185, 205 (Rules of Court have the “force of law”).) The Declarations of O’Brien in support of each motion contain 16 exhibits across 280 pages. The opposing Declarations of Geoffrey Mcbride contain 21 exhibits across 80 pages (Warac) and 24 exhibits across 90 pages (Chapman). Failure to comply with Rule 3.1110(f) imposes an unreasonable burden on the Court. Although some papers were fax-filed, the obligation to comply with Rules of Court rests ultimately with the party or party’s counsel. Counsel are directed to comply with all Rules of Court in all filings.

The Court orders the motion off calendar.

Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith. The January 22, 2018 letter from Mr. O’Brien to Mr. Macbride consists primarily of citations to law and general statements that Defendant’s objections were boilerplate and evasive. Most of the letter does nothing to address the objections, clarify the discovery requests, or suggest the manner in which Defendants might supplement their responses.

Defendants responded with Letter from Macbride to O’Brien, February 1, 2018, but much of that letter merely pointed out that Mr. O’Brien’s opening letter provided insufficient information to which Defendant could respond. Plaintiff’s counsel terminated the meet/confer with his letter of February 2, 2018. These communications fail to satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 (moving party must show a “reasonable and good faith” attempt at resolving “each issue” presented by the motion).)

The Court declines to deny the motion for failure to meet and confer. A sampling of the responses at issue show that many, but not all, of Defendant’s responses are deficient. Denying this motion would reward Defendant for serving evasive responses; granting the motion would reward Plaintiff for failing to fulfill his meet-and-confer obligations.

Further, Plaintiff’s Separate Statement fails to comply fully with Rule 3.1345(c)(5) (“If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, . . . the other request and the response to it must be set forth).) Plaintiff has set forth the other request, but not Defendant’s response. (See, e.g., Special Interrogatories 14 & 16; Form Interrogatory 17.1)

In addition, the Court cannot determine the extent to which the motion might be moot. Defendants contends that they served supplemental responses to some of the discovery on February 23 and 27, 2018. (See Opposing Separate Statements). Defendants cite to Exhibits 25, 26, 27, and 28 as evidence, but the Opposing Declarations of Macbride contains only 20 exhibits relating to Warac’s Opposition and 24 exhibits relating to Chapman’s Opposition.) The Court cannot determine whether Defendants supplemented their responses or to which requests.

The Court orders:

1. The parties shall engage in a good faith effort to resolve the issues informally. Plaintiff shall initiate the efforts.

2. If any matters remain unresolved, then Plaintiff may file a motion as to those matters. The deadline for a further motion is April 13, 2018. The deadline may be extended in writing signed by Defendants’ counsel or by court order upon showing of good cause.

3. All papers filed in this Court shall comply with the California Rules of Court.