Obregon v. Superior Court
79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 62, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7972, 67 Cal. App. 4th 424 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a party fails to make a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution of a discovery dispute, the trial court is not required to deny the subsequent motion to compel. Instead, the court has broad discretion to fashion a remedy appropriate to the circumstances, which may include ordering further informal resolution efforts instead of outright denial.
Facts:
- Plaintiff was an employee at a Burger King franchise owned and operated by Cimm’s, Inc.
- Plaintiff sued Cimm’s and her former supervisor for sexual harassment.
- During the lawsuit, Plaintiff served written questions (interrogatories) on Cimm’s.
- Cimm’s served responses that included a mixture of factual answers and objections to the questions.
- After more than five weeks passed, and with approximately 13 days left before the filing deadline for a motion to compel, Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to Cimm's requesting further responses.
- Nine days later, and just one day before the filing deadline, Cimm’s counsel responded by mail, largely reiterating the original objections.
- Plaintiff's counsel received Cimm's response the day before the deadline to file a motion to compel.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued Cimm’s, Inc. and her former supervisor in a California superior court (trial court).
- During discovery, Plaintiff filed motions to compel further responses to form and special interrogatories.
- Cimm's opposed the motions, arguing that Plaintiff had failed to make a 'reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution' as required by statute.
- The trial court agreed with Cimm’s, denied Plaintiff’s motions to compel, and imposed monetary sanctions on Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Court of Appeal, asking it to overturn the trial court's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When a trial court finds that a party's attempt at informal resolution of a discovery dispute was inadequate, must the court deny that party's motion to compel discovery, or does it have the discretion to order a lesser sanction or alternative remedy?
Opinions:
Majority - Zebrowski, J.
No. A trial court is not required to deny a motion to compel discovery outright when it finds the moving party's informal resolution efforts were inadequate; rather, the court has the discretion to fashion a more appropriate remedy. The court must reconcile the principle of liberal construction in favor of discovery with the statutory requirement for informal dispute resolution. While the informal resolution requirement is a key part of the self-executing discovery system, outright denial of discovery is a harsh remedy that should be reserved for egregious cases involving a clear intent to harass, bad faith, or a pattern of flaunting statutory duties. In cases where a party makes some effort, but it is deemed insufficient, the trial court should exercise its discretion and consider relevant factors to determine the proper remedy. This may include ordering the parties to engage in further specific informal resolution efforts, imposing monetary sanctions, or other measures short of a complete denial of potentially critical discovery.
Analysis:
This decision provides crucial guidance for trial courts managing discovery disputes, emphasizing judicial discretion over rigid, punitive measures. It clarifies that a failure to adequately 'meet and confer' is not an automatic bar to discovery. The opinion establishes a balancing approach, instructing courts to weigh the circumstances of the inadequate effort against the fundamental principle of liberal discovery. This prevents a party from losing access to potentially case-dispositive information due to a procedural misstep, thereby promoting the resolution of cases on their merits rather than on procedural technicalities. The case arms trial judges with the flexibility to manage attorney conduct and tailor remedies to the specific facts of a dispute.
