Document for UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC. VS AMERICOLD LOGISTICS, LLC, ET AL.

• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ‘Upe,   rior lL Ee
                                                                                                              unt   OF Log a Calitornig
                           SUPERIOR  COURT            FOR THE STATE                   OF CALIFORNIA
                                  FOR THE            COUNTY OF LOS                   ANGELES
                                    SOUTHEAST DISTRIC                                                               14 2ho
                                                      T/NORWALK                             COURT “SS                        Ottcer/ ter,
                                                                                                                                 Depur
                                                                          )   Case    No.   20STCV03153
             UNITED       NATURAL    FOODS,    INC.,

         6                    Plaintiff                                       ORDER/RULING
                      s

         8   AMERICOLD       LOGISTICS,       LLC,     ET   AL,

                             Defendant

10




12           Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set
             Four) is DENIED as MOOT.
13

14           Opposing Party to give Notice.
15
             Defendants’ Special Interrogatories (set four) was served on April 21, 2021.
1            Plaintiff served its initial responses on May 31, 2021. On September 15, 2021,
17           Plaintiff served supplemental responses. The subject Motion to Compel Further
             Responses to Special Interrogatories (set four) was filed on September 21, 2021.
18           On September 28, 2021, Plaintiff served second supplemental responses.

19
             In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ Motion should be DENIED as
             MOOT and that sanctions should be awarded in favor of Plaintiff due to
             Defendants’ failure to adequately meet and confer prior to resorting to motion
    21       practice.
 22
             In Reply, Defendants concede that Plaintiff's second supplemental responses are
23
             adequate. Defendants maintain, however, that sanctions in their favor are
 2           justified due to Plaintiffs history of gamesmanship and delay in providing code-
             compliant discovery responses. Defendants maintain that Plaintiff would not have
26
             provided code-compliant responses if Defendants had not filed the instant
             Motion.

27           Where supplemental responses were served after a motion to compel further is
28
             filed, the Court has discretion to deny a motion to compel further as moot, and



                                                            ORDER   - 1