RYLAN JOHN BURNETT v. ELIJAH DASHAWN TAYLOR, et al.

RYLAN JOHN BURNETT,

v.

ELIJAH DASHAWN TAYLOR, et al.

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 11, 2024, Plaintiff Rylan John Burnett (“Plaintiff”) filed a Judicial Council

Form Complaint alleging causes of action for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and

negligent entrustment against Defendants Annette Lerma, Elijah Dashawn Taylor, (“Taylor” or

“Defendant”) and Angelena Lerma (collectively, “Defendants”).

Plaintiff alleges that on August 12, 2023, at the intersection of Central Avenue and El Prado

Road in the City of Chino, the Defendants were negligent in operating, controlling, and entrusting

a motor vehicle so as to cause a motor vehicle collision that severely injured Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶

GN-1)

Defendants filed a single answer on February 27, 2025, and at the time were represented

by the same counsel. On March 6, 2026, a substitution of attorney was filed on behalf of Taylor.

On April 3, 2026, Plaintiff and Taylor filed motions against each other regarding the same

discovery, Plaintiff’s requests for production (“RFP”s) 61 and 77. Taylor’s motion sought a relief

from serving objections and late discovery responses, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section

2031.300, subdivision (a). Plaintiff’s current motion before the Court seeks to compel further

responses to the same RFPs (RFPs 61 and 77).

Plaintiff Has Not Evidenced a Good Faith Effort to Meet and Confer

If a party brings a motion to compel further responses, it is required to include a meet and

confer declaration with its motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) “A meet and confer

declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at

an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

Here, although counsel for Plaintiff attaches a declaration with his motion, such declaration

does not state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution. Per

counsel’s declaration, the RFPs were served prior to Taylor’s substitution of counsel, and once

Defendant noticed the error, Defendant sent a meet and confer letter, not Plaintiff. (N. Yazdi Decl.

¶7, Ex. 4.) Plaintiff’s response to the meet and confer letter was essentially to tell Defendant that

his responses were late and “confirm” that Plaintiff would be moving “forward with the necessary

motions to compel.” (N. Yazdi Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 5.)

Plaintiff’s meet and confer effort is deficient. Plaintiff was required to show it made “a

reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to

informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040 subd. (a).)

Plaintiff’s declaration does not make this showing; instead it shows Plaintiff sent one email prior

to filing the current motion.

As such, this Court may deny the motion based on Plaintiff’s failure to properly meet and

confer. (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431.) This Court also may continue

the motion for failure to properly meet and confer pursuant to San Bernardino County Local Rule

560. The Court exercises its discretion and continues the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

Further Verified Responses to July 16, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a meet and

confer declaration at least 10 calendar days prior to the July 16 hearing.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing the Court ORDERS the following:

1. Finds Plaintiff did not adequately meet and confer prior to filing this motion;

2. Continues the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Verified

Responses to July 16, 2026 at 9:00 a.m.; and

3. Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a meet and confer declaration at least 10 calendar days

prior to the July 16 hearing.

Plaintiff’s Counsel is ordered to provide notice.

4