Case Number: BC655200 Hearing Date: October 17, 2018 Dept: 20

TENTATIVE RULING

and NOTICE OF CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE

Judge Dalila C. Lyons

Department 20

Hearing Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Posted on lacourt.org: October 11, 2018

Case Name: Meyrowitz v. Lalji, et al.

Case No.: BC655200

Motion: Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents; Requests for Sanctions

Moving Party: Plaintiff Lauren Meyrowitz

Responding Party: Defendant Triple M Management, LLC

Ruling: Plaintiff Lauren Meyrowitz’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents is DENIED.

Defendant Triple M Management, LLC is ordered to produce a privilege log within 15 days of this order, identifying any documents withheld or redacted based upon a claim of privilege, if any.

Plaintiff’s Lauren Meyrowitz’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice

___________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE RE SETTLEMENT FROM OCTOBER 17, 2018 TO OCTOBER 25, 2018, 8:30 a.m. TO COINCIDE WITH THE MOTION SET IN DEPARTMENT 1 AT 9:00 A.M.

Plaintiff Lauren Meyrowitz (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling defendant Triple M (“Triple M”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things (the “Document Requests”). Plaintiff also requests sanctions against Triple M and its counsel of record (1) in the amount of $6,360.00 for the reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in making the instant motion; and (2) in the amount of $7,760.00 for the attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in making Plaintiff’s April 06, 2018 motion to compel on the grounds such sanctions are warranted due to bad faith discovery abuse that continued after the meet and confer the Court order in its denial, without prejudice, of Plaintiff’s prior motion to compel.

In its opposition, Triple M claims it has produced all documents in its possession, custody, and control that are responsive to the Document Requests in its initial and supplemental responses for a total of 2,391 pages of documents. Triple M states it has not withheld or failed to produce any responsive documents other than those withheld or redacted based upon attorney client privilege or work product and that while Triple M asserts other objections no documents were withheld on such basis.

ANALYSIS

I. Procedural Issues

Plaintiff’s motion and Triple M’s opposition and supporting papers fail to comply with California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1110(f)(3) which requires each paper exhibit to be separated by a hard 8 ½ x 11 sheet with hard paper or plastic tabs extending below the bottom of the page and bearing the exhibit designation.

Plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with CRC Rule 3.1113(f) which requires any memorandum in excess of 10 pages to include a table of contents and table of authorities.[1]

In its discretion the Court will consider such filings, but the parties are cautioned to comply with all statutes, rules, and requirements for the proper service, filing, and presentation of papers and that further non-compliance may result in sanctions, including but not limited to the Court refusing to consider any non-conforming paper.

I. Compel Further Responses

A. Requests for Production

“If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following: (1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made. (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.” CCP § 2031.240(b). “[I]f a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on responding party to justify any objection.” Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” CCP § 2031.310(a). “A motion under subdivision (a) [of CCP § 2031.310] shall comply with both of the following: (1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” CCP § 2031.310(b). In addition, a separate statement is required. CRC 3.1345(a)(3).

Here, Plaintiff improperly attempts to rely on arguments raised in further detail in Plaintiff’s Separate Statement or the supporting declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel. But such arguments are improperly presented and improperly circumvent CRC Rule 3.1113(d) which limit any opening memorandum to 15 pages. The Court will not consider any arguments raised in Plaintiff’s Separate Statement or declaration of counsel that are not included in the memorandum. In re Marriage of Heggie (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 28, 30 n. 3 (“The proper place for argument is in points and authorities…”).

Further, Triple M states it has produced all documents in its possession, custody, and control that are responsive to the Document Requests in its initial and supplemental responses. Triple M stats it has not withheld or failed to produce any responsive documents other than those withheld or redacted based upon attorney client privilege or work product and that while Triple M asserts other objections no documents were withheld on such basis. There is nothing further for the Court to compel Triple M to produce.

However, to the extent Triple M has withheld or redacted documents based upon a claim of privilege, it must provide Plaintiff a privilege log. See CCP § 2031.240(c)(1); Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is DENIED. Triple M is ordered to produce a privilege log within 15 days for any documents, if any, withheld or redacted based upon a claim of privilege.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

[1] The Court further notes Plaintiff improperly raises argument regarding the Court’s decision on Plaintiff’s prior motion to compel further. This is not a motion for reconsideration and such argument is nothing more than Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s decision, which is not a proper basis for reconsideration.