Case Number: BC655515 Hearing Date: March 21, 2018 Dept: 97

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 97

Tandy Zorba, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

The Vons Companies, Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC655515

Hearing Date: March 21, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Defendant’s motions to compel further responses from PLAINTIFFS Tandy Zorba and Nick Zorba

On January 23, 2018, defendant “the Vons Companies, Inc.” (“Defendant”) filed two motions to compel further responses from plaintiff Tandy Zorba to: (1) form interrogatories (FROG) and (2) request for production and inspection of documents (RPD), which were originally set to be heard on March 14, 2018 and March 15, 2018. On January 23, 2018, Defendant also filed one motion to compel further responses from plaintiff Nick Zorba to special interrogatories (SROG), which was originally set to be heard on March 14, 2018.

The Court’s notes indicate that the discovery issues were resolved at the Informal Discovery Conference held on February 27, 2018. However, the moving party did not cancel the motions in the Court Reservation System. Nor did the moving party file any papers to take the motions off calendar. Instead, the moving party rescheduled the motions on the Court Reservation System to a new hearing date of March 21, 2018. There is no indication from the moving party as to what issues, if any, remain unresolved with regard to the three motions to compel further. Therefore, the three motions to compel further currently set for March 21, 2018 are continued to April 27, 2018 at 10:00 am.

The parties should continue to meet and confer face-to-face or by telephone in good faith. If the parties fully resolve the outstanding discovery issues, the parties must promptly take any motions to compel further off-calendar via the Court Reservation System.

If the parties are not able to resolve all outstanding discovery issues, the parties are ordered to file, no later than 14 days prior to the continued hearing on the motions, one joint statement of items remaining in dispute in strict compliance with California Rule of Court 3.1345, with a courtesy copy directly to Department 97. For each discovery request still in dispute, the joint statement must include: (1) the text of the request or discovery item in dispute; (2) the response, answer, or objection, and any further responses already provided; (3) the moving party’s factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers or production; (4) the non-moving party’s factual and legal reasons why a further response should not be compelled; and (5) all other information identified in California Rule of Court 3.1345.

The joint statement must list the remaining issues in dispute, item by item, and include all of the information required above (categories 1-5, inclusive) immediately below the heading for that item of discovery. Following the listing of issues, positions and other relevant information, the parties must jointly disclose the efforts undertaken to resolve each disputed issue and why those efforts failed.

The joint statement should address each and every outstanding issue in connection with the motions. If, for example, the parties believe meet and confer was inadequate, sanctions should be imposed, etc., those issues must be listed in the joint statement of items in dispute, and the parties’ positions and arguments must be set forth under the listed item in the joint statement. If declarations or evidence are necessary, the declarations and evidence must be attached to the joint statement.

For any matters withheld on the basis of a privilege or other protection, a privilege log must be prepared, setting forth the title, subject, and nature of the claim of privilege with respect to each document. The privilege log should also include a declaration generally detailing the underlying factual predicates for each claimed privilege.

The parties must file one joint statement; the parties are NOT to file separate statements of items remaining in dispute regarding the motions to compel further responses. If no joint statement is filed as of 14 days prior to the continued hearing on the motions, the motions will be taken off calendar.

Defendant the Vons Companies, Inc. is ordered to give notice of this order.

DATED: March 21, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court