TOWER NT, LLC vs. TANNER’S LEANFEAST 1, LLC; ET AL.

Case No. CU24-01197

LEANFEAST and TANNER’s Motion for Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Requests for Production

Defendants TANNER’S LEANFEAST 1, LLC and FRANCIS CARL TANNER IV (“Moving Defendants”) move to compel Plaintiff TOWER NT, LLC to further respond to seven requests for production. This matter concerns alleged failure to pay rent on a commercial lease. Moving Defendants state that the material they seek to discover relates to Plaintiff’s attempts to mitigate its damages from Moving Defendants’ alleged nonpayment of rent.

The court first considers the adequacy of the moving parties’ efforts to meet and confer to work discovery issues out before resorting to a motion to compel further responses. Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 requires a declaration “showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion” to compel. Moving Defendants’ counsel’s attached declaration states that Moving Defendants’ counsel served the discovery requests at issue on March 11, 2026 and received Plaintiff’s responses thereafter (Plaintiff’s declaration states responses were served April 28, 2026). (Declaration of Noah Phillips in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production at ¶¶ 2-3].)

Moving Defendants’ counsel sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter on April 30, 2026. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7, Exhibit A.) On May 8 Plaintiff’s counsel told Moving Defendants he would try to obtain the desired records via an informal process. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Moving Defendants filed the instant motion on May 11, 2026.

The trial court has discretion in determining whether adequate meet and confer efforts preceded the filing of the motion. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424 [factors include complexity of discovery issues, history of counsel in prior disputes, judge's gut feeling; sending one brief letter 13 days prior to deadline to file motion was not sufficient attempt].)

Moving Defendants’ meet and confer efforts were inadequate. While Moving Defendants’ meet and confer letter properly explained the simple problem Moving Defendants perceived with Plaintiff’s responses, Moving Defendants did not give Plaintiff an appropriate chance to address deficiencies. On May 8 Plaintiff stated it would attempt to obtain the material Moving Defendants sought but Plaintiff filed the instant motion only three days later rather than wait to see what Plaintiff delivered.