Case Number: NC060047??? Hearing Date: July 12, 2016??? Dept: S27
In what should be a very simple case for breach of a commercial lease (Grog Liquor) the parties have engaged in prolonged discovery wars.
The Court has made several discovery orders against Defendants.
On April 12, 2016 Plaintiff moved for terminating sanctions on the basis that the orders had not been fully complied with. The Court denied the motion finding that there had not been a total disobedience and lesser sanctions could suffice. (Responses had been served with objections.) The Court offered Defendants ?one last chance to avoid the ultimate sanction? and allowed 15 days to comply rather than the 10 days allowed in the tentative ruling. On April 19, 2016 the Court denied Defendants? motion for a protective order.
The terminating sanctions motion is based on the contention that there still has not been full compliance as of May 10, 2016, when the motion was filed.
The two motions to compel further responses were filed back in January, 2016. Although there are many items in the separate statement, all issues appear to be that objections were interposed even though the objections had been waived. It is unclear whether these motions were subsumed into and mooted by the order of April 12, 2016 which ordered responses without objection.
Defendants? counsel has filed a what can only be described as an arrogant opposition castigating opposing counsel and contending there is no specific proof of non-compliance. Evidentiary objections to Plaintiff?s counsel?s moving declaration are under cover with tentative rulings.
He submits a package of responses which he claims moots the motion. There is no proof of service on any of the response packets. It is doubtful that these moot the issues ? Defendants contend they were served before opposition to the motion for terminating sanctions. If they had satisfied the moving party, of course the present motion wouldn?t have been pending. If they had already been served, why did Defense counsel ask for 15 days to respond rather than 10 days? Logic dictates that he wouldn?t have needed any days. He would have opposed on the basis of full compliance rather than his ?I moved my office and didn?t receive things? position.
There is no way to resolve these motions without argument and credibility determinations by the Court. The Court needs to know precisely what orders specifically still require the Court?s intervention.