2015-00175330-CU-OE

Evyanne Phelps vs. Steven Madden Retail, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

Filed By: Page, Michelle L.

Plaintiff’s motions to compel defendant Steven Madden Retail, Inc.’s (“SMR”) further responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions are DENIED IN THEIR ENTIRETY, as follows.

This is a putative wage-and-hour class action. The representative plaintiff propounded the subject discovery on SMR, which served its objections and responses to same on 10/18/2018. Then, 32 days later, plaintiff purported to commence the requisite meet-and-confer process with a six-page letter sent by email on 11/19/2018, which letter unilaterally demanded a response from SMR just three court days later (the Monday after the Thanksgiving holiday). Despite plaintiff’s unexplained 30-plus day delay in commencing the meet-and-confer process, SMR responded to plaintiff’s 11/19/2018 letter on 12/5/2018 and therein agreed to extend the deadline for plaintiff’s motions to compel to 12/12/2018 so as to permit further discussion of the issues presented. However, for unknown reasons, plaintiff chose not to respond to SMR’s letter and

instead proceeded with filing these three motions to compel on 12/12/2018.

The court will deny each of these motions in its entirety due to plaintiff’s failure to engage in a serious, meaningful and good faith attempt to meet-and-confer on the specific issues raised by these motions. First, plaintiff’s delay of 32 days to commence the meet-and-confer process required under the Civil Discovery Act is unexplained and inexcusable under the circumstances. Second, it appears the six-page letter sent on 11/19/2018 was not intended to facilitate any meaningful discussion in an attempt to resolve the parties’ dispute and avoid the need for judicial intervention but rather was a hollow, superficial effort to create the illusion of satisfying the meet-and-confer prerequisite for this motion, something which is confirmed by plaintiff’s demand for a response just three court days later on the Monday after the Thanksgiving holiday. Third, plaintiff failed to respond at all to SMR’s response on 12/5/2018 and despite SMR’s generous offer to extend the deadline for plaintiff’s motions, plaintiff simply proceeded with filing these motions to compel without further attempts to meet-and-confer. These facts demonstrate plaintiff’s complete disregard of the substantive requirements of the meet-and-confer process and effectively precluded the parties from having any meaningful opportunity to resolve this discovery dispute without consuming finite judicial resources. As this court has often explained, the meet-and-confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather, it “requires…a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1438.) For all these reasons, the present motion must be and hereby is denied in its entirety.

While the court would under such circumstances be inclined to award SMR monetary sanctions for having to oppose these motions to compel, SMR did not request such sanctions.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)