DUNHAM vs TACO MI RANCHO

25CV158965: DUNHAM vs TACO MI RANCHO 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Tacos Mi Rancho (Defendant) CRS# 503586956327 in Department 20

Tentative Ruling - 08/31/2026 Thomas Eagle Weathers

The Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Tacos Mi Rancho (Defendant) CRS# 503586956327 scheduled for 09/03/2026 is continued to 10/15/2026 at 03:00 PM in Department 20 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses and Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses are CONTINUED to October 15, 2026.

The parties have not engaged in meet and confer as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040(a), which provides that the parties shall engage in a “reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.”

As to Plaintiff’s motion, she states that she engaged in written meet and confer with Defendant. (Pltf. Decl. ¶ 7.) As to Defendant’s motion, it contends that Plaintiff does not permit telephone conversations or other real-time communications as to this litigation, and therefore, Defendant sent written meet and confer to Plaintiff. (Freeman Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)

It is a central precept of the Civil Discovery Act that discovery be essentially self-executing. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434.) Reasonable and good faith efforts at informal resolution of discovery disputes are a key part of the discovery system. (Id.) A reasonable and good faith effort at informal resolution, as necessary to avoid discovery sanctions, entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Ellis v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 853, 879-880.)

Moreover, as to Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff fails to comply with Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c), which requires, inter alia, for each discovery request to which a further response, answer, or production is requested, (1) the text of the request; (2) the text of each response; and (3) a statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. A motion to compel requires a separate statement which shall include, inter alia, a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 892; C.R.C. Rule 3.1345(c)(3).) The separate statement “provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.” (CRC 3.1345(c) [emphasis added].)

Plaintiff’s separate statement does not provide the text of the request or the text of the response; Plaintiff only provides a summary of the request and response. Moreover, Plaintiff does not provide legal reasons to compel further responses. 25CV158965: DUNHAM vs TACO MI RANCHO 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Tacos Mi Rancho (Defendant) CRS# 503586956327 in Department 20 By September 14, 2026, the parties are ordered to engage in good faith meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue raised by the two discovery motions. The parties are also encouraged to request an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) with the Court, pursuant to Local Rule 3.31 by contacting the clerk of Department 20.

If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute, Plaintiff shall file an amended motion to compel with a code-compliant separate statement by September 22, 2026.

The Court notes that there is no current opposition on file to Defendant’s motion.

The parties may submit amended oppositions and replies, with deadlines per Code, pursuant to the continued hearing date.