Los Robles Emergency Physicians Med. Grp. v. Franz
Los Robles Emergency Physicians Med. Grp. v. Franz
2024 WL 2106945 (C.D. Cal. 2024)
April 4, 2024
Rocconi, Margo A., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiffs to respond to her Requests for Production (RFPs) after a series of communications and disputes regarding both parties' discovery. The Court ultimately denied the motion, but the parties' interactions and compliance with Local Rule 37 were relevant to the issue.
Los Robles Emergency Physicians Medical Group et al
v.
Carrie L. Stanford Franz
v.
Carrie L. Stanford Franz
Case No. 2:23-cv-09487-DSF-MAR
United States District Court, C.D. California
Filed April 04, 2024
Rocconi, Margo A., United States Magistrate Judge
Proceedings: (In Chambers) ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL, DKT. 68
*1 On March 14, 2024, Defendant and Counterclaimant Carrie L. Stanford-Franz (“Defendant”) filed a motion to compel, seeking an order compelling Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants Los Robles Emergency Physicians Medical Group and Richard Benedon (“Plaintiffs”) to respond to Defendant's Requests for Production (“RFPs”). ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 68 (“Motion”). Plaintiffs filed an opposition on March 27, 2023. Dkt. 77 (“Opp.”). The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the April 17, 2024 hearing is VACATED. For the reasons below, the Motion is DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
While there is only one motion to compel currently before the Court, there are actually two parallel discovery disputes ongoing between the parties: one concerning Plaintiffs' discovery, and the other concerning Defendant's. The parties' communications with respect to both disputes are relevant to the issue of whether the parties sufficiently complied with Local Rule 37 with respect to the instant Motion. The Court sets forth the timeline below, constructed from the parties' briefing.
On January 26, 2024, Defendant served a set of RFPs upon Plaintiffs. Motion at 3–4.
On February 11, 2024, Defendant responded to discovery previously served upon her by Plaintiffs. Declaration of Jordan Susman in Support of Opp. (“Susman Decl.”), Dkt. 77-1, ¶ 2. Plaintiffs believed Defendant's responses to be inadequate, and thus, on February 26, 2024, sent Defendant a meet and confer letter pursuant to Local Rule 37-1. Id., Ex. 1.
Also on February 26, 2024, Defendant responded to Plaintiffs' allegedly boilerplate responses to Defendant's January 26 RFPs, requesting that Plaintiffs provide a privilege log to identify documents withheld based on privilege. Motion, Ex. B. Defendant's email stated, “[i]f you refuse to provide the log, please provide a date on which you are available to meet and confer re: Motion to Compel.” Id. Plaintiffs' counsel responded as follows:
Carrie,
That's not how it works. See Local Rule 37-1.
If you have a discovery issue, you must abide by the local rules. Also see Local Rule 1-3 (“Persons appearing pro se are bound by these rules, and any reference in these rules to “attorney” or “counsel” applies to parties pro se unless the context requires otherwise.”) Your ongoing refusal to abide by the rules of civil procedure and the local rules is sanctionable conduct. See STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE DALE S. FISCHER.
Jordan
Motion, Ex. C. Defendant responded by quoting Local Rule 37-1, with the following statements:
I have requested a meet and confer pursuant to LR 37-1 IF you do not provide the required log. What is the issue? Did you not see the last sentence of the email?:
“If you refuse to provide the log, please provide a date on which you are available to meet and confer re: Motion to Compel.”
These emails are my good faith efforts to eliminate a dispute as required by LR. Not sure how to make this more clear.
*2 Id.
On February 27, 2024, Plaintiffs' counsel replied, “Yesterday you sent me a series of shambolic emails re alleged issues with my clients' discovery responses. That is not how it works. Even after I directed you to LR 37-1, you clearly failed to read it in full.” Motion, Ex. D.
On February 28, 2024, Plaintiffs' counsel wrote to Defendant to follow up on their meet and confer letter, requesting that she meet and confer telephonically within 10 days pursuant to Local Rule 37-1. Susman Decl. Ex. 2. Defendant responded,
Since Discovery just started, there is no need to rush a motion to compel. We have 6-months.
Since we have both served notices of Discovery deficiencies, and know there will be more such claims, let's work on consolidating the issues at a later date in a consolidated meet and confer pursuant to LR 37-1 instead of by piecemeal....[Defendant describes other anticipated discovery]Therefore, it is premature to schedule a meet and confer re: Motion to compel at this time. It would be a waste of the Court's time to continuously schedule multiple telephone conferences re: Discovery disputes prior to completion of Discovery.Let's revisit this in 30 days after you have responded to the subsequent Discovery requests served upon your clients last week.[Defendant describes alleged deficiencies with discovery provided by Plaintiffs]A formal notice pursuant to LR 37-1 will follow.I will also again review your LR 37-1 letter and see if there is any additional supplemental information I can provide in addition to the supplemented responses sent to you yesterday. So far I have supplemented the responses even though you have refused to.Since I have supplemented my responses, I have complied with LR 37-1. If you disagree, please serve an updated request acknowledging the supplemented responses. At that time, if we can't resolve all disputes during the consolidated meet and confer, we can then draft one joint statement per the Mag Judge's rules and request a telephone conference as not to burden the Court with multiple motions....
[Defendant describes several issues regarding pending and upcoming motions]I believe this strategy will save costs and preserve judicial economy which the parties are required to comply with.I am available the week of April 1, 2024. Please let me know what dates and times are good for you.
Susman Decl., Ex. 3.
On February 29, 2024, Plaintiffs' counsel responded, stating:
Carrie,That's not how it works. As I have repeatedly advised you, even though you are representing yourself, you are obligated to comply with the operative rules of civil procedure and local rules.LR 37-1 requires the parties to meet and confer telephonically within 10 days of a party sending a meet and confer letter re discovery. (“Counsel for the opposing party must confer with counsel for the moving party within ten days after the moving party serves a letter requesting such conference.”) Accordingly, please choose from the dates and times below to meet and confer. Given your incessant emails, it is clear that you have the time to meet and confer and are simply seeking to delay discovery as a form of gamesmanship. Such tactics are not well taken. If you refuse to meet and confer, I will let the court know and seek all available sanctions for your refusal to comply with the local rules.
*3 Susman Decl., Ex. 4. Plaintiff responded that:
[t]he intent of the LR is for the parties to resolve their issues without taking up the courts time with frivolous motions. There are more documents that are available and I have updated my responses. You are just being a bully at this point. I have you the dates I am available to meet and confer. Either cooperate with those dates or file the motion to compel and face sanctions.
Susman Decl., Ex. 5.
On March 1, 2024, Plaintiffs' counsel emailed Defendant to gather proposed dates so that he could request a telephonic conference pursuant to the Court's procedures. Susman Decl., Ex. 6. Defendant responded that, as she had said previously, she was unable to meet and confer the first week of April. Susman Decl., Ex. 7. Plaintiffs' counsel then emailed this court seeking a telephonic conference. Susman Decl., Ex. 8.
On March 4, 2024, Plaintiffs' counsel wrote to Defendant: “in the event you file any pleadings, serve any documents, or send any emails beyond a confirmation of the foregoing before April 1, we will conclude that your alleged ‘unavailability’ was a lie, and will proceed accordingly.” Susman Decl., Ex. 9. Defendant responded, noting that it was busy season for her work (accounting and bookkeeping); to avoid having “weekly meet and confers,” Defendant proposed a “mutual” meet and confer after Plaintiffs responded to outstanding discovery, noting that she may be able to meet before April 1 if Plaintiffs responded quickly. Susman Decl., Ex. 10.
On March 6, 2024, in an attempt to obtain her own requested discovery through another avenue, Defendant contacted Plaintiffs' counsel to request his client sign a HIPPA Release Form so she could gather his medical records via subpoena. Motion, Ex. E.
On March 11, 2024, the Court responded to Plaintiffs' request for an informal discovery conference as follows:
The Court believes an informal discovery conference may be premature and will not be productive at this time. The parties are encouraged to meet and confer further to attempt to resolve these disputes without court intervention. To the extent one or both parties believe a discovery motion is necessary at this time, they have leave to file without an informal discovery conference, but only after they have replied to this email acknowledging they have read and understood the following:
Though a pre-motion telephonic conference is not required, parties must still comply with all the requirements of Local Rule 37 and Fed. R. of Civ. P. 37 in filing their motion. The parties are encouraged to promptly agree to some type of resolution of the dispute before filing motions. Note that, going forward, if any dispute between the parties proceeds to motion practice, the Court will be required to consider the application of the fee-shifting provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5). That rule generally requires the Court to assess fees against a losing party in a discovery motion unless that side's conduct was substantially justified or circumstances would make a fee-shift unjust. The fees can be imposed against the losing party's attorney, the party itself, or both.
*4 Susman Decl., Ex. 14.
On March 13, 2024, Defendant wrote Plaintiffs' counsel and requested that Plaintiffs provide their portion of a joint statement pursuant to Local Rule 37-2.1 within twenty-four hours. Susman Decl., Ex. 15.
On March 15, 2025, Plaintiffs' counsel responded:
Your request makes no sense on many levels, the first being that you swore up and down that you were unavailable to meet and confer until April 1. Based upon the volume of your correspondence and pleadings since you made that representation, it is clear that you were lying.
Second, your request makes no sense procedurally, as you have failed to send a meet and confer letter as required, failed to meet and confer telephonically as required, and already filed your motion to compel.
Notwithstanding my numerous requests that you comply with the rules that govern litigation in the Central District of California, you continue to refuse to do so. We will, therefore, seek all available sanctions for your abusive litigation tactics.
Susman Decl., Ex. 16.
On March 14, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion. Dkt. 68. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on March 27, 2024. Dkt. 77.
II.
DISCUSSION
A. DEFENDANT'S MOTION IS DENIED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULE 37
1. Applicable law
Prior to filing any motion to compel with the court, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) requires that the moving party certify that “the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Furthermore, Local Rule 37-1 requires that if any party wishes to file a motion related to discovery, the party filing the motion must “confer in a good-faith effort to eliminate the necessity for hearing the motion or to eliminate as many disputes as possible.” L.R. 37-1. The meet and confer process begins by a moving party sending a letter identifying each issue in dispute; the opposing party has a responsibility to meet and confer with the moving party within ten days of the letter. Id.
If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute at the meet-and-confer conference, they must formulate a joint stipulation that complies with the requirements set forth by Local Rule 37-2.1. L.R. 37-2. Following the conference, the moving party must deliver their portion of the joint stipulation, “together with all declarations and exhibits to be offered in support of the moving party's position.” L.R. 37-2.2. The opposing party then must deliver to the moving party the opposing party's portion of the joint stipulation within seven days unless the parties agree otherwise. Id.
After the opposing party's material is added to the stipulation by the moving party's counsel, the stipulation shall be provided to opposing counsel, who shall sign it (electronically or otherwise) and return it to counsel for the moving party no later than the end of the next business day, so that it can be filed with the notice of motion.
Id.
The Court will not consider any discovery motion in the absence of a joint stipulation or a declaration from counsel for the moving party establishing that opposing counsel (a) failed to confer in a timely manner under L.R. 37-1; (b) failed to provide the opposing party's portion of the joint stipulation in a timely manner under L.R. 37-2.2; or (c) refused to sign and return the joint stipulation after the opposing party's portion was added.
*5 L.R. 37-2.4.
Meet and confer rules are in place to “encourage settlement, resolve disputes which need not involve the court ... thus saving the parties, the courts, and the taxpayers' limited time, money and resources.” Mull v. Motion Picture Indus. Health Plan, No. LA CV 12-06693-VBF, 2015 WL 11233510, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015). “The failure of any counsel to comply with or cooperate in [the pre-filing conference of counsel or joint stipulation] procedures may result in the imposition of sanctions.” L.R. 37-4; see also L.R. 83-7 (“The violation of or failure to conform to any of these Local Rules may subject the offending party or counsel to ... [any] sanctions the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances.”). However, if the court is convinced that execution of a good faith meet and confer “would not have aided the resolution of the dispute without judicial intervention,” then the court can overlook a party's failure to comply with the good faith meet and confer requirement. Castillo v. Bank of Am. N.A., No. 8:17-cv-00580-DOC-KESx, 2018 WL 6074580, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2018).
2. Analysis
Here, Defendant did not comply with the letter or spirit of Local Rule 37. First, Defendant misrepresents the Court's email by stating she was given leave to file the instant Motion. The Court's email granting the parties leave to file a motion was sent in response to Plaintiffs' request for a telephonic conference with respect to their motion. The Court was not provided with any background on the dispute underlying Defendant's motion, and the Court did not send the email in response to any request from Defendant to file a motion. Defendant made no attempt to schedule an informal telephonic conference on the dispute underlying her motion, which alone constitutes a violation of this Court's procedures listed on their website.
To be sure, the Court's email did state that, “[t]o the extent one or both parties believe a discovery motion is necessary at this time, they have leave to file without an informal discovery conference.” Susman Decl., Ex. 14. Even if this could be fairly construed to have technically given Defendant leave to file the instant motion, Defendant did not comply with the Court's mandate to “comply with all the requirements of Local Rule 37 and Fed. R. of Civ. P. 37 in filing their motion.” Id. Defendant did not make an effort to send a meet and confer letter pursuant to Local Rule 37-1. Rather, two days after the Court's email, Defendant simply sent her portion of the joint stipulation to Plaintiffs. Furthermore, Defendant unilaterally demanded Plaintiffs respond within twenty-four hours, rather than a mutually agreed upon timeframe or the seven days prescribed by Local Rule 37-2.2.
Given Plaintiffs' failure to comply with Local Rules 37-1 and 37-2.2, the Court need not consider the Motion. Local Rule 37-2.4. Defendant's failure to initiate a conference deprived the parties of an opportunity to avoid the instant litigation entirely, and Defendant's failure to comply with Local Rule 37-2.2 deprived the Court of a joint stipulation as described in Local Rule 37-2.1, which could have aided in the speedy and just resolution of the dispute if the meet and confer conference was unsuccessful. Therefore, the Court declines to overlook Defendant's failure to comply with the meet and confer requirement, and the Motion is DENIED.
B. COSTS AND FEES
1. Applicable law
*6 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(B) (“Rule 37”), if a discovery motion is denied:
[T]he court ... must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the movant, the attorney filing the motion, or both to pay the party or deponent who opposed the motion its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees. But the court must not order this payment if the motion was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B).
In addition, the Local Rules provide strict procedures with which counsel must comply in bringing or opposing a discovery motion, including requiring a pre-filing conference of counsel and joint stipulation. L.R. 37 et seq. Local Rule 37-4 specifically provides “[t]he failure of any counsel to comply with or cooperate in the foregoing procedures may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id.
2. Analysis
Plaintiffs seek sanctions against Defendant for her failure to comply with Local Rule 37. Opp. at 8. As noted above, Defendant's failure to comply with the meet and confer requirements of Fed. R. of Civ. P. and Local Rule 37 have wasted both the parties' and Court's resources. However, the Court acknowledges that Defendant is proceeding pro se. While pro se litigants are not exempt from complying with the local rules, the Court affords them more leniency than licensed attorneys proceeding with the benefit of a resourced law firm.
On that note, the parties' communications reflect that Plaintiffs' counsel, while attempting to comply with the letter of Local Rule 37 with respect to their own discovery grievances, has not been fully embracing the spirit of Local Rule 37 in approaching meet and confer discussions. Plaintiffs mischaracterize Defendant's communications as a refusal to meet and confer; the emails themselves clearly demonstrate that Defendant was attempting to conserve the Court's and parties' resources by consolidating multiple meet and confer proceedings to avoid multiple discrete requests for telephonic conferences. Indeed, the Court does not find that Defendant's conduct suggests she was lying about her unavailability before April 1, as Plaintiffs argue. A plain reading of the emails supports the interpretation that Defendant was generally busy until April, and hoped to consolidate multiple meet and confer proceedings to save time. Defendant's ability to respond to emails or prepare other filings she deemed to be critical to the litigation does not undermine Defendant's representation that she was busy for the next few weeks and preferred to save time by consolidating phone calls. Indeed, Defendant's proposal appears perfectly reasonable; while Plaintiffs may have been entitled to reject it, their attempt to paint it as gamesmanship is not well taken.
Ultimately, given Defendant's pro se status and Plaintiffs' counsel's failure to approach communications with Defendant entirely in good faith, the Court declines to impose sanctions on Defendant for failing to comply with Local Rule 37 and finds that these circumstances would make an award of costs and fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 unjust.
*7 Though the Court does not view Defendant's conduct in attempting to consolidate meet and confer proceedings as gamesmanship, Defendant's immediate filing of the instant motion in response to the Court's March 11 email, without any attempt to meet and confer in good faith, does reek of gamesmanship. The Court's decision not to impose sanctions or costs and fees should not be read to excuse Defendant's conduct. Rather, the Court's decision is based on the fact that neither party appears to be approaching communications with each other in good faith, and that both parties have been more focused on weaponizing Local Rule 37 than on abiding by it. Both parties are cautioned to remember that while no one expects discovery “to be a non-stop exchange of pleasantries,” Freeman v. Schointuck, 192 F.R.D. 187, 189 (D. Md. 2000), the parties have a general responsibility to approach the discovery process in good faith and avoid unnecessary court intervention, see Rule 37(a)(1) (requiring parties to make a good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes without court action). Accordingly, both parties are admonished to communicate and conduct themselves in good faith in attempting to resolve discovery disputes. The Court will not treat either party as graciously should any future discovery matter come before the Court without a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute informally.
IV.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing reasons, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
(1) Defendant's Motion to Compel, Dkt. 68, is DENIED; and
(2) Plaintiffs' request for sanctions is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.