Unknown

discovery, but in order to get to a resolution it might be in the propounding party's interest to forego aspects of the discovery that are not really needed, perhaps reserving the right to seek that information at a later time should it prove necessary. The point is not to have the court simply hammer away at the opponent. That might happen at a motion, but it is not the goal of the IDC.

No orders will be made except on stipulation. However, if there is an agreement, the court may well want to make an appropriate order or ask the parties to confirm it in writing. Parties should take careful notes on any agreements. Because there are no Court Reporters, it is hard to put an agreement on the record. However, unless the agreement is confirmed quickly, people have a tendency to forget or to have "buyer's remorse." Therefore, it is best to have one party send an immediate confirming email to the other and obtain an agreement. The court would prefer not to get into the specific wording of the agreement during the IDC unless absolutely necessary.

The IDC process does not work if people view it as just a necessary step to filing a motion. The court does not see it that way--if it did, then the court would abandon the IDC as a waste of time. Rather, this is an off-ramp to avoid motion practice and the attendant costs and time. Hopefully, it is also a way to get discovery more quickly than through formal motion practice.

At the IDC, no matter how hot tempers have run in the past, the court expects all counsel to be polite and civil in tone to one another. The court will not tolerate rudeness or unnecessary accusations. They do not move the ball forward and they make it nigh impossible to reach an agreement.

production of the vehicle for inspection. Plaintiff opposes by saying that there is an agreed upon production date of September 24, 2026. In reply, defendant states that the date does work, but defendant wants an order. Because it appears that the motion was required before plaintiff was willing to commit, the motion will be GRANTED and the vehicle will be produced for inspection on September 24, 2026.

Case Number: 25SMCV04930 Hearing Date: September 4, 2026 Dept: I It appears that the motions to compel have been taken off calendar. There will be no hearing today.

Case Number: 25SMCV05297 Hearing Date: September 4, 2026 Dept: I The matter is here for an FSC. The court has plaintiff's exhibits filed on August 3 as well as defendant's witness list and exhibits filed on 8/11. The court also has defendant's trial brief. Defendants filed new FSC materials yesterday.

The court will need to inquire. According to the defense, plaintiff has refused to participate in the meet and confer process. If that is true, plaintiff will be barred from calling any witness other than plaintiff and will be barred from introducing any exhibits. Plaintiff may cross examine any witness called by the defense within the scope of the examination and may rely on any exhibit actually introduced by the defense. If plaintiff has tried to participate, then the court will need to set a new trial date, as the parties are plainly not able to file joint materials. The court will discuss the first day of trial with the parties. | Home -->)" -->