2015-00184230-CU-PO

Beverly Edwards vs. Plum Healthcare Group, LLC

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1. Admissions 2. Form 3. Production

Filed By: Clement, Lesley Ann

The Court, on its own motion, concludes that the appointment of a discovery referee is appropriate in this case. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 639, et seq.)

In limited circumstances, the court may appoint a referee, without the agreement of the parties [Cal. R. Ct. 3.920(a)]. An order directing all discovery matters to a discovery referee is appropriate in the “unusual case where a majority of the factors favoring reference are present.” (Taggares v. Superior Court (1988) 62 Cal.App.4th 94, 105.) These factors include: (1) multiple issues to be resolved; (2) multiple motions to be heard simultaneously; (3) the motion before the court is only one in a continuum of many; (4) the number of documents to be reviewed (especially in light of issues based

on assertions of privilege) make the inquiry inordinately time-consuming. (Id.) “In making its decision, the trial courts need consider the statutory scheme is designed only to permit reference over the parties’ objections where that procedure is necessary

, not merely convenient. [Code Civ. Proc. § 639(e).] Where one or more of the above factors unduly impacts the court’s time and/or limited resources, the court is clearly within its discretion to make an appropriate reference.” (Id. at 105-106.)

Given the exceptional volume of motions and hours of judicial time that have already been spent in this case and that ten discovery motions have been filed and are scheduled to be heard this month alone, the Court concludes that most–if not all–of the factors above are met. Therefore, it is appropriate to appoint a discovery referee under section 639(a)(5) to “hear and determine any and all discovery motions and disputes relevant to discovery and to report findings and make a recommendation.”

Counsel for the parties shall submit a stipulation of the appointment of a specified referee, together with a declaration as to his or her hourly rate and willingness to serve. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 639; Cal. R. Ct. 3.922.) In the event the parties cannot agree upon a referee, the following procedure will be employed: the parties shall exchange lists of three (3) potential referees, together with their hourly rate(s) and confirmation that the proposed referees are available and willing to serve as a court appointed referee. The parties shall each be entitled to strike two names from the other’s list. Thereafter, the parties shall present a joint declaration setting forth the two remaining names to the Court and the Court will appoint a referee from those two names. The parties shall submit the stipulation or the joint declaration to the Court no later than January 31, 2018.

The Court will thereafter appoint a discovery referee to provide his or her report and recommendation as to the discovery and discovery-related motions pending before the Court, and any further discovery disputes. The referee’s fees shall be paid equally by the parties, absent a report and recommendation in the alternative from the referee. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc. § 645.1(b).)

The Court notes that a preference was initially granted in this matter on June 20, 2017, entitling Plaintiff to a trial before October 18, 2017. Trial was set for November 27, 2017. On September 29, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a stipulated motion to vacate the trial date. The motion was granted on October 24, 2017, and the parties were referred to the trial setting process for the selection of trial and mandatory settlement conference dates. The parties did not select dates. On January 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed another motion for preference, scheduled to be heard on February 6, 2018. None of this changes the Court’s considerations in determining whether a referral to a discovery referee is proper under the circumstances presented.