Case Number: BC528179 Hearing Date: February 17, 2015 Dept: 39
Valley Blvd Investments, LLC et al v. SquareD Company, et al, BC528179

February 17, 2015 # 6

Motion of Plaintiff, Valley Blvd. Investments, LLC to Compel Supplemental Responses and Production to its First Set of Document Demands

Court’s Tentative Ruling: DENY

Although the notice of motion indicates that Plaintiff is setting to compel supplemental responses and production to its first set of document demands, point II of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities is the first notice that Plaintiff is seeking further responses to only demands 5, 7, and 10. This does not comply with California Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(d), which requires the moving party to identify not only the set, but the number of the specific demand, interrogatory, or request sought to be compelled.

The court finds that the moving party (plaintiff) has failed to satisfy its burden, of setting forth specific facts, showing good cause justifying the discovery sought. (C.C.P. § 2031.310(b)(1).) Therefore, on this ground, the motion is denied.

Although the motion is denied on the merits, the court further notes that the meet and confer process was inadequate pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.310(b)(2) as to requests 5 and 10. This section requires that the motion be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under C.C.P. § 2016.040, which in turn states the declaration “shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” The attached Declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel does not so state.

Attached to the motion as Exhibit 3 is Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer letter of June 11, 2014. It does not refer to Request number 5. Therefore, it does not communicate that Plaintiff considered Defendant’s response to request number 5 to be inadequate. This inference is supported by Exhibit 4 to the motion, Defendant’s counsel’s response letter to Plaintiff’s meet and confer, dated June 20, 2014. Therein, Defendant’s counsel does not address request number 5.

Subsequent email exchanges throughout July and August between counsel are attached to the motion as exhibits. Request number 5 is not mentioned until a much later email by Plaintiff’s counsel, of September 10, 2014, in Exhibit 13 (also at Exhibit 14). This email, however, is not a meet and confer, as it does not offer to engage in further discussions. Rather, it serves to tell defense counsel that Plaintiff “will be moving to compel.” While this email identifies by number certain production requests that will be the subject of the motion to compel, it does not identify request number 10. That is, Plaintiff did not give notice to Defendant that Plaintiff would be seeking compel further responses to number 10.

The court further orders the parties to meet and confer with respect to Plaintiff’s pending discovery motions set for hearing on April 6, 2015. On its own motion, the court sets an Order to Show Cause why a discovery referee should not be appointed, to be heard on April 6, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. Responses to the court’s OSC are to be filed and served pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 1005 and 1013.

The court also orders Plaintiff/moving party to submit an amended Notice of Motion on each of the motions to compel presently set for April 6, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. that comply fully with C.R.C. 3.1345(d) (i.e. identify the specific interrogatory, demand, or request sought to be compelled by number, not just by set). The amended notices of motion are to be filed and served pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 1005 and 1013.