Party Discovery: LA CHURCH VS ORIGEL,ET AL Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto)
     FICKEL A DAVIS                                              SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
     Richard S. Davis (SBN 259448l                               COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
     3254 Fourth Avenue                                          11/7/2023 3:05 PM
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Ph: 619-557-9420 Fax: 619-557-9425
     rdavis(kfickeldavislaw.corn

     Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants
     RAQUEL ORIGEL, CATHERINE BILOW AKA KATE BILOW, and
     NIBBLE TI-IIS, LLC




                     SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                            FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10

11
     LA CHURCH, LLC, a California LLC,            Case No.: CIVDS1817827
12
                    Plaintiff,                    Assigned to Dept. S25, Hon. Khyntberli
13
                                                  rlpaloo, for all purposes
              vs.
14                                                DEFENDANT CATHERINE BILOW'S
                                                  REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
15
     RAQUEL ORIGEL, an individual;                MOTION TO COMPEL
     CATHERINE BILOW a.k.a. KATE BILOW,
16   an individual; and DOES 1-100,
17
                                                  Hearing Date: November 9, 2023
                    Defendants.                   Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.
                                                  Department: S25
18

19                                                Complaint Filed:       July 11, 2018
                                                  Cross-Complaint Filed: February 22, 2019
20
                                                  Trial Date:             None Set
21

22

23   AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION
24

25

26   TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
27

28
     LA   Chare/~, tt Cv Orfeet, e( al           -I-                Case No CIVDS1817827
          DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
                                       PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
              Defendant and Cross-Complainant Catherine Bilow aka Kate Bilow ("Bilow') submits the

     following Reply to Plaintiff Central Avenue, LLC's (" Central Avenue" ) Opposition to Bilow's

     Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiff Central Avenue to Respond without Objections to Request

     for Production of Documents (" Motion to Compel" ).

 5                                       I.   INTRODUCTION
              On June 2, 2023, Bilow served Plaintiff Central Avenue with Requests for Production
     of Documents. See Exhibits A and B attached to the Declaration of Richard Davis in Support
     of Motion to Compel. The responses were due July       5, 2023, but no response was received.

     See Davis Declaration. After failed attempts to meet and confer, Bilow filed her Motion to
10   Compel on July 31,2023. See Court Records and Davis Declaration. A hearing on Bilow's
     Motion to Compel was originally set for September 11, 2023. Id. On September 7, after
12   Bilow filed a Notice of Non-Opposition, Plaintiff filed an untimely Opposition to Bilow's
13   Motion to Compel. Id. On September 11, 2023, the Court continued the hearing to October
14   6, 2023. Id. The Parties appeared on October 6, 2023. Id. At the hearing on October 6,

15   2023, Plaintiff's attorney stated that he had served timely responses. Plaintiff s attorney also
16   stated he had served responsive documents, although not timely. See Davis Declaration.
17   Bilow's attorney disputed the false assertions that any responses or responsive documents
18   were ever produced. Id. The hearing was then contimied again to November 9, 2023, and
19   the Court requested that the Parties schedule an informal discovery conference. A discovery
20   conference was subsequently scheduled for November 3, 2023. See Court Records and
21   Davis Declaration. During the November 3, 2023, discovery conference, Plaintiff's counsel
22   admitted that no responses or responsive documents had been served prior to the filing of
23   Defendant Bilow's Motion to Compel, and that responses had only been served one days
24   prior, on November 2, 2023. See Davis Declaration.
25                               II.   PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION
26           Plaintiff opposes Bilow's Motion to Compel on two grounds. First, Plaintiff Central
27   Avenue wrongly claims that Bilow's Motion to Compel should be denied because no
28
     LA   Chsueh, LLCv. Oncet ei ah           -2-                   CaseNo. CIVDSI8I7827
          DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
                                    PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS