GABRIEL ESPINOZA VS. SHRIMP GIRLS, INC.

Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Tuesday, June 03, 2025, Line 12, PLAINTIFF GABRIEL ESPINOZA's Motion To Compel Discovery Responses. (Part 1 of 2).

Plaintiff Gabriel Espinoza's Motion To Compel Discovery Responses is DENIED. Defendant Shrimp Girls, Inc. in fact provided responses to Plaintiff's discovery. Thus, this motion, which is appropriate only where no response has been received, fails.

Construed as a motion to compel further responses, Plaintiff's motion fails. For such a motion, the moving party must include a meet and confer declaration. (Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(b)(1).) A meet and confer declaration must "state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion." (Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040.) Plaintiff' did not file a meet and confer declaration and, therefore, the motion is denied.

Here, the absence of a showing of a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of the issues raised by the motion is especially troubling. The record reflects that Plaintiff's counsel requested from Defense counsel either a response to a settlement demand or discovery responses by a certain date. Defendant provided a response to the settlement demand. After not hearing back, Defendant followed up with discovery objections. Defendant reasonably believed settlement discussions would continue, but inquired regarding discovery.

Plaintiff declined to discuss Defendant's discovery responses, then filed this motion. Given Plaintiff asked for either a settlement response or discovery responses, Plaintiff was obligated to work with Defendant on the timing and substantive of discovery responses before filing a motion to compel on the outstanding discovery. Plaintiff's filing of their motion without engaging in any meaningful effort to informally resolve the issues is a misuse of discovery.

Further, a motion to compel further responses requires a separate statement.(See California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(2)&(3) [separate statement required for motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and RFPs]. Plaintiff failed to provide a separate statement; the motion is denied on these grounds, as well.

The court does not find Plaintiff Gabriel Espinoza and his counsel acted with substantial justification in connection with this purported discovery. Defendant Veronica Lehmann and her counsel, jointly and severally, shall pay $500 as sanctions, payable to the Clerk of the Court, payment no later than by June 20, 2025, receipt filed no later than June 27, 2025. (Continued to Part 2). =(302/JMQ). | |