CIV468937 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION vs. MARSHALL A MASOLI

TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION RAYMOND A. PATENAUDE

MARSHALL A. MASOLI FRED W. SCHWINN

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion is denied.

Toyota did not meet and confer in good faith before filing this motion. The discovery at issue was served on November 20, 2017, and the deadline for this motion, according to Toyota, was January 10, 2018. Toyota waited until Friday afternoon, January 5, 2018, to send a six-page letter raising the issues addressed by this motion. The substantive portions of the January 5 letter are verbatim of the moving Points and Authorities supporting this motion, suggesting that Toyota drafted much of this motion before even sending the letter.

Further, the letter suggests conferring one or two business days after the letter was sent. It is not unusual that a meet-and-confer letter does not receive a response within just two days. Toyota filed this motion on the third day. This events do not constitute a good faith effort to resolve the issues informally.

Masoli responded to Toyota’s letter five business days later, on January 12, 2018, and the parties reached an agreement, evidenced by Toyota’s serving responses on February 13, 2018. Had Toyota not waited until three days before the motion deadline, then the present motion (or at least most of it) likely would not have been necessary. The delay in sending the January 5 letter appears unreasonable, since a cursory glance at the discovery requests immediately reveals the relevance issues that are the ground for the present motion. Further, if Toyota had requested that Masoli or the Court grant a deadline extension, the request likely would have been granted, and the parties would have been able to resolve the matter without involving the Court.

Finally, much of the present motion is moot. The motion asks for an order that Toyota need not respond to most of the document requests and interrogatories. Toyota served responses on February 13, 2018. Thus, the motion now seeks an order that Toyota need not do what Toyota has already done.