2017-00220927-CU-BT

Gurpreet Singh vs. Gerber & French, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1) Form 2) Production and Appointment of Discovery

Filed By: Cardenas, Ededina S.

Defendants Gerber & French, Inc. and Charanjit Singh Ghai’s motion to compel plaintiff Gurpreet Singh to provide further, verified responses to Defendants’ request for production of documents, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, is UNOPPOSED and is GRANTED.

No later than October 29, 108, Plaintiff shall provided further, verified responses to Defendants; request for production of documents, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, and produce responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control.

At this time, the Court declines Defendants’ request to appoint a discovery referee to hear future discovery motions. Unless both parties have agreed to a reference, the Court should not make blanket orders directing all discovery motions to a discovery referee except in the unusual case where a majority of factors favoring reference are present. (Taggares v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 94, 105.) “These include

(1) there are multiple issues to be resolved; (2) there are multiple motions to be heard simultaneously; (3) the present motion is only one in a continuum of many; (4) the number of documents to be reviewed (especially in light of the issues based on assertions of privilege) make the inquiry inordinately time-consuming.” (Id. at 105-106.) Where one or more of the above factors unduly impact the court’s time and/or limited resources, the court is clearly within its discretion to make an appropriate reference. (Taggares, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at 105-106, CCP sec. 639.)

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. (CCP § 639(e).) Where one or more of the above factors unduly impact the court’s time and/or limited resources, the court is clearly within its discretion to make an appropriate reference. (Taggares v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 94, 105-106.)

The Court does not find that CCP § 639 supports Defendants’ request for the appointment of a referee on the facts before the Court. There have been no prior motions to compel any discovery, and there are no future discovery motions pending. Defendants have not presented ed any evidence that there a multiple issues to be resolved or that the number of documents that need to be reviewed would make the inquiry inordinately time-consuming. Defendants have failed to meet their burden to establish exceptional circumstances justify appointment of a discovery referee at this time. Accordingly, the request to appoint a discovery referee is DENIED without prejudice.

Defendants’ additional request for an order that permits either party to record future meet and confer discussions and that those recordings be transcribed is also DENIED.

Sanctions are denied because the motion was not opposed. Although CRC 3.1348(a) purports to authorize sanctions if a motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing sanctions under the CRC must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. (

Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v Firmaterr Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.) However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.)

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.