Arroyo vs. Swift Debt Relief, Inc.

# Case Name Tentative 1 24-01431292 1) Motion to Compel Production 2) Motion to Compel Production Arroyo vs. Swift Debt Relief, Inc. MOTION NO. 1: Plaintiff Brenda Arroyo’s motion to compel defendant Mark Photoglou to provide supplemental responses and all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One, Request Nos. 2-11 is CONTINUED to _______.

The rule requiring a good faith effort to meet and confer about discovery disputes “is designed to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order . . . [t]his, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016.) “A reasonable and good-faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering . . . Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 1431, 1439.)

In its opposition, Defendant states “[t]he parties can resolve their disputes if Plaintiff’s counsel were to work with Defendants’ counsel to reach an agreement about the scope of the Requests and definition.” (Opp., 4:22- 24.) Defendant’s counsel states during a meet and confer call, he explained to Plaintiff’s counsel that he believed the requests were improperly overbroad and that it made more sense for the parties to stipulate to certain definitions or to certain keywords and/or phrases that could assist with the identification of responsive documents. (Bozant Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff’s counsel refused to agree to any such compromise, and instead told Defendant’s counsel that Defendants “should know” exactly what the requests mean based on the allegations in the complaint and the purportedly limited time period Plaintiff worked for Swift. (Bozant Decl., ¶ 9.)

The court finds further conferences between the parties would be productive. Therefore, the parties are ordered to engage in additional attempts to meet and confer regarding the issues that remain in dispute, including a telephonic or in-person conference (not email). No later than 9 court days prior to the continued hearing, the parties are to file a Joint Statement which shall (1) describe the parties’ attempts to meet and confer pursuant to this order, (2) identify each discovery request that remains in dispute, and (3) each party’s position on the discovery request that remains in dispute.