Preview
16CV300096
Santa Clara — Civil
CIV-130
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and addross) FOR COURT USE ONLY ‘System System
— Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575)
Consumer Law Center, Inc. Electronically Filed
1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104 by Superior Court of CA,
San Jose, California 95112-4610
TeLepHoNE No.(408) 294-6100 ax wo. onsonan(408) 294-6190 County of Santa Clara,
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optiona)) fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com on 2/26/2021 3:12 PM
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): MARIA ANTONIA CANUL Reviewed By: System System
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Case #16CV300096
STREET ADDRESS: 191 North First Street Envelope: 5927352
MAILING ADDRESS: 191 North First Street
CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Jose, CA 95113
BRANCH NAME: Downtown San Jose
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: MARIA ANTONIA CANUL
CASE NUMBER:
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
16CV300096
OR ORDER
(Check one): (K) UNLIMITED CASE (CC) Limitep case
(Amount demanded (Amount demanded was
exceeded $25,000) $25,000 or less)
TO ALL PARTIES:
il judgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date): February 26, 2021
2. Acopy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice.
Mh
Date: February 26, 2021
Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575)
See one neenece done (eal one arco (SIGNATURE)
Page 1 of 2
Form Approved for Optional Use NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER wirw.courtinfo.ca.gov
Judicial Council of California
CIV-130 [New January 1, 201
CB Essential
ceb.com {2\Forms-
CIV-130
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC CASE NUMBER:
LL 16CV300096
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: MARIA ANTONIA CANUL
PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
(NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order if you are a party in the action. The person who served
the notice must complete this proof of service.)
1 | am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. | am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took
place, and my residence or business address is (specify):
1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104
San Jose, California 95112-4610
| served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order by enclosing it in a sealed envelope with postage
fully prepaid and (check one):
a (Cd deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service.
b. [4] placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, following this business's usual practices,
with which | am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is
deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service.
The Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order was mailed:
a. on (date): February 26, 2021
b. from (city and state): San Jose, California
The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
a Name of person served: Name of person served:
Molshree Gupta, Chapman, Glucksman, et al
Street address: 11900 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800 Street address:
City: Los Angeles City:
State and zip code: CA 90064-0704 State and zip code:
b. Name of person served: Name of person served:
Street address: Street address:
City: City:
State and zip code: State and zip code:
(C] Names and addresses of additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).)
5. Number of pages attached 1] _
| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: February 26, 2021
Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575)
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT)
Page
2 of 2
CIV-130 [New January 1, 2010} NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
CEB’ | Essential
cebcom | {2)Forms:
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10
11
12 VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No. 16CV300096
13 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
14 VS.
15 MARIA ANTONIA CANUL,
16 Defendant.
17
MARIA ANTONIA CANUL, on behalf of herself
18 and all others similarly situated,
19 Cross-Complainant,
20 vs.
21 VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a New
Jersey limited liability company; and ROES 1
22 through 10, inclusive,
25 Cross-Defendants.
24
25 The above-entitled action came on for hearing on Wednesday, February 24, 2021, at
26 1:30 p.m. in Department 3, the Honorable Patricia M. Lucas presiding. Having reviewed and
27 considered the written submissions filed by the parties, and having listened carefully to
28 arguments of counsel, the court rules as follows:
ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
I. INTRODUCTION
In the two related cases of 16CV300096 and 18CV338986, Plaintiff Velocity
Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) asserted claims against defendants Maria Antonia Canul
(“Canul’”) and Eva Marcelo Pascual (“Pascual”), respectively, for collection of debts. Except for
the dates on which the Complaints were filed, the two dockets are essentially identical. The
Complaint in 16CV300096 was filed on September 20, 2016, and in 18CV338986, on December
10, 2018. Each Complaint sets forth the following causes of action: (1) Open Book Account;
and (2) Money Lent. In each case, an Answer and a Cross-Complaint were filed on February 19,
2019.
10 The Cross-Complaints set forth a putative class action claim in which Canul and Pascual
11 (collectively, “Cross-Complainants) allege, in a single cause of action, that Velocity has a routine
12 practice of filing and serving collection complaints that do not comply with the California Fair
13 Debt Buying Practices Act.
14 Now before the court are Cross-Complainants’ motions to compel further discovery
15 responses. Specifically, Cross-Complainants move for an order compelling Velocity to provide
16 responses without objection to Cross-Complainants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special
17 Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents and Electronically Stored
18 Information (“ESI”) (Set One), and to produce responsive documents and ESI in its possession,
19 custody, or control.
20 Il. CHRONOLOGY OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND RESPONSES
21 Two years ago, on February 19, 2019, Cross-Complainants served the discovery requests
22 at issue in these motions: specifically, Form Interrogatories 12.1 and 15.1; Special
25 Interrogatories 1-14; and Request for Production of Documents 1-32.
24 On March 26, 2019, Velocity’s responses were due, but none were served. Although no
25 meet and confer effort is required when no responses at all are served, Cross-Complainants wrote|
26 to Velocity on April 20, 2019, requesting that responses be served by April 30. Velocity did not
27 serve responses or acknowledge the email. (Declaration of Fred Schwinn, filed May 7, 2019.)
28
ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
On May 7, 2019, Cross-Complainants filed motions to compel responses. The motions
specifically sought responses “without objections”: that is, that objections be deemed waived by
Velocity’s failure to timely respond. Velocity did not oppose the motions, or contest the July 11,|
2019 tentative rulings granting the motions and imposing monetary sanctions. Formal orders
followed on July 23, 2019, and notices of entry of the orders were filed on August 13, 2019.
Still Velocity served no responses.
On August 6, 2019, Velocity substituted new counsel.
On March 6, 2020, Velocity served responses, apparently unverified, stating many
objections and providing little information, and provided an incomplete production of
10 documents. On May 12, 2020, Cross-Complainants provided to Velocity a 16-page letter
11 explaining the deficiencies in the responses and requesting further responses by May 29, 2020.
12 (Declaration of Matthew Salmonsen, filed January 25, 2021.) More than a month later, on June
13 18, 2020, Velocity responded asserting that Cross-Complainants were entitled to no discovery at
14 all because they were not members of the alleged class. This assertion was in turn based on the
15 premise that while the Cross-Complaints pled that Velocity had filed and served collection
16 complaints without attaching documents “evidencing the debtor’s agreement to the debt” as
17 tequired by statute, the Cross-Complaints themselves showed this allegation to be false because
18 they attached final Truth In Lending Disclosures which, Velocity claimed, evidences Cross-
19 Complainants 2 6, ‘agreement to the debt.” As to several specific responses, Velocity agreed to
20 provide supplemental responses but did not offer when those would be served.
21 On June 24, 2020, Cross-Complainants responded to Velocity’s letter, pointing out the
22 inaccuracy of the premise that Cross-Complainants are entitled to no discovery and addressing
25 the commentary on each request. The letter requested amended responses by July 3, 2020.
24 Velocity did not respond.
25 On July 9, 2020, Cross-Complainants wrote again, requesting further responses. Velocity
26 requested more time, but still no further responses were forthcoming.
27 On October 7, 2020, Cross-Complainants wrote again. Velocity claimed to be working
28 on the responses.
ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
On November 10, 2020, Cross-Complainants wrote again. In response, Velocity for the
first time requested a stipulated protective order, which has now been entered. Velocity has not
served further responses.
il. DISCUSSION
A. Cross-Complainants’ Meet-and-Confer Efforts Were Adequate.
Velocity argues that Cross-Complainants > «6, counsel has dodged significant efforts by
Cross-Defendants’ counsel to engage in meaningful meet and confer” (Opposition to Motion to
Compel Further Responses (“Opposition”), at 4:9-10), but the record shows that this is not
correct. Velocity also asserts that no informal discovery conference has yet taken place as
10 required in the complex civil litigation department, but at the time Cross-Complainants filed
11 these motions, these cases were not yet assigned to the complex civil litigation department.
12 Evaluating the history of correspondence between counsel and the positions the parties
13 have taken, the court finds that Cross-Complainants have made a sufficient effort to meet and
14 onfer, and that the issues are ready to be decided.
15 B. Cross-Complainants Are Entitled to Further Responses
16 1 Velocity’s Objections Are Waived
17 By failing to respond at all to Cross-Complainants’ discovery requests, Velocity has
18 waived its objections pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(a) and 2031.300(a).
19 Velocity offers no argument to the contrary. The motions to compel responses--which requested
20 responses “without objections”--were granted, and Velocity has never sought an order relieving
21 it from such waiver. Accordingly, except as discussed below with respect to privacy and
22 attorney-client privilege, Velocity’s objections cannot be considered. Even if Velocity’s
25 objections were not waived, Velocity has not undertaken, much less met, its burden to justify the
24 remaining objections. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210.)
25 2. Velocity’s Relevance Objection Has Been Waived and
In Any Event Has No Merit.
26
27 Although its objections have been waived, Velocity submits its primary argument based
28 on a disfavored objection: relevance. Velocity contends that Cross-Complainants’ discovery
does not meet the very broad definition of relevance applied in discovery: i.e., the requests are
ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Velocity does not question
the fundamental principle that discovery is very broad indeed—to the extent that even “fishing
expeditions” are generally allowed. (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal. App.4th 1539,
1546.)
Velocity asserts that Cross-Complainants are not entitled to any discovery (i.e., no
discovery is relevant to the ‘subject matter” of the action) because “[t]he ‘subject matter’ of the
Cross-Complainant is a simple question of law--whether a final Truth in Lending disclosure
associated with a loan transaction is a ‘document evidencing the debtor's agreement to the debt’
under California Civil Code Section 1788.52.” (Opposition, at p. 2:5-8.)
10 For the reasons provided to Velocity by Cross-Complainants during the meet-and-confer
11 process and explained again in Cross-Complainants’ Reply Memorandum of Points and
12 Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses, Velocity’s assertion that the
13 final Truth in Lending disclosure, before the transaction, is a “document evidencing the debtor’s
14 agreement to the debt” is wholly unsupported by its arguments. In any event, the existence of a
15 dispositive “question of law” does not preclude discovery. The phrase “subject matter” does not
16 lend itself to precise definition; it is broader than relevancy to the issues, which is the trial
17 standard for admissibility. (Laddon v. Superior Court (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 391.) For
18 purposes of discovery, information is “relevant to the subject matter” if it might reasonably assist
19 a party in evaluating the case or preparing for trial. (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48
20 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1616.)
21 Velocity argues that Cross-Complainants’ allegations are deficient, but even if that were
22 true, the procedure for addressing the alleged deficiency is not to withhold discovery. Even if
25 Velocity, in good faith, “is unable to comprehend Cross-Complainant’s position regarding
24 Section 1788.52, specifically why a final Truth in Lending disclosure associated with a loan
25 transaction is not a ‘document evidencing the debtor's agreement to the debt 399 (Opposition, at
26 4:19-22), Velocity’s confusion is not a basis to withhold discovery. Velocity cites no case that
27 so holds. Velocity states but does not explain its conclusion that it is unable “to search for
28 relevant class information because of a pleading deficiency.” (/d. at p. 6:26.)
ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
3. Velocity Must Provide Code-Compliant Further Responses.
Velocity must provide verified further responses. It does not appear from Exhibits E-G
to the Salmonsen Declaration that Velocity’s responses were verified.
While the court does not determine on this record that Velocity, as the holder of the
attorney-client privilege, intended to waive that privilege when its attorneys failed to respond,
should Velocity decide to invoke the privilege to withhold documents, full compliance with
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivisions (b) and (c) is required.
Velocity does not argue and has not justified any privacy objection relating to itself or its
business: the only privacy right Velocity argues is that of third parties. (Opposition, at p. 11:14-
10 12:19.) Accordingly, no documents or information are to be withheld on the basis of a right of
11 privacy belonging to Velocity. To the extent Velocity’s responses stated such an objection, it is
12 overruled as Velocity has made no effort to justify it. Thus, for example, the requested discovery]
13 concerning Velocity’s net worth, which Cross-Complainants correctly argue is relevant under
14 Civil Code section 1788.62, subdivision (b), must be provided.
15 Velocity argues that it asserts the privacy rights of third parties in connection with two
16 interrogatories and one document request:
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
18 State the number, names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all California residents
against Whom YOU filed collection Complaints in the form of Exhibit “1” from
19 December 10, 2017, through the present.
20
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
21
Please IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS with any role or responsibility for drafting,
22 authorizing, or approving the use of collection Complaints in the form of Exhibit “1.”
YOUR answer should include references to any and all DOCUMENTS which support
25
your answer.
24
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
25
ANY DOCUMENTS and ESI RELATING to or EVIDENCING the number, names, and
26 addresses of ANY California residents against whom YOU filed collection Complaints in|
the form of Exhibit “1” from December 10, 2017, through the present.
27
28 i
ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
Velocity offers no explanation how the rights of third parties are implicated by Special
Interrogatory No. 9, which seeks the identity of persons acting on behalf of Velocity. The
privacy objection is overruled as to Special Interrogatory No. 9.
Special Interrogatory No. 7 and Request for Production No. 18 seek the number of
individuals against whom Velocity filed collection Complaints in the form of Exhibit 1 (a copy
of a complaint filed in the Santa Clara Superior Court), production of such Complaints and
related documents, and the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of those individuals. In
Exhibit 1, Velocity makes public disclosure of “the name and last known address of the debtor as|
they appeared in the charge-off creditor’s records,” as required by Civil Code section 1788.58,
10 subdivision (a)(7).
11 Cross-Complainants contend that Velocity’s disclosure in the public complaints requires
12 that Velocity must now disclose to Cross-Complainants all the information and documentation
13 they request. However, the potential class members are not deprived of all privacy rights
14 because Velocity placed in a court file their names and an address. In any event, Cross-
15 Complainants’ requests go beyond the scope of the information Velocity disclosed.
16 Generally, discovery of contact information for potential class members is handled
17 through the process described in Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.
18 App.4th 554, 562, cited by Cross-Complainants. Although Belaire-West was itself a wage-and-
19 hour case, this procedure is also used for class actions outside the employment context. (See,
20 e.g., In re Ins. Installment Fee Cases (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1426-29.)
21 Velocity does not acknowledge the Belaire-West solution or explain why it would not
22 adequately address the circumstances of this case. Certainly, this case does not involve the
25 unique situation in Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 820, 828, on
24 which Velocity relies. In that case, the Belaire-West process as ordered by the trial court in a
25 headless class action offended a statutory policy entitling persons convicted of minor marijuana
26 crimes to have those criminal records “treated as if they never existed.”
27 At the hearing, Cross-Complainants suggested that the court defer until after class
28 certification Velocity’s responses to Special Interrogatory No. 7 and Request for Production No.
ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 18 as well as production of documents responsive thereto other than the collection Complaints
themselves. In the interim, Cross-Complainants suggest, the court should order production of the
collection Complaints without a Belaire-West notice. Cross-Complainants suggested that this
would minimize the need to publish class-wide notices. However, Belaire-West and related
cases do not provide support for this suggestion.
Accordingly, the parties are ordered to share equally the cost of using a third-party
administrator to contact potential class members and to provide them with the opportunity to opt
out of providing their information to Cross-Complainants. To be clear, when Velocity provides
the information to the administrator for the Belaire-West notice, that information will include any|
10 addresses known to Velocity, not just the addresses disclosed in the public complaints.
11 Cc. Monetary Sanctions
12 When a motion to compel or limit discovery is made and lost, the recovery of monetary
13 sanctions is the default result, according to the Legislature’s design of the Discovery Act. Two
14 statutes on which Cross-Complainants rely contain the following direction to the court: the court
15 “shall” impose a monetary sanction on a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a discovery
16 motion unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or
17 that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc.
18 §§ 2030.300, subdivision (d); and 2031.310, subdivision (h).)
19 “[T]he purpose of discovery sanctions ‘is not “to provide a weapon for punishment,
a
20 forfeiture and the avoidance of a trial on the merits, ... but to prevent abuse of the discovery
21 process and correct the problem presented....” (Parker v. Wolters Kluwer United States, Inc.
22 (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 285, 301.) Monetary sanctions encourage “voluntary compliance with
25 discovery procedures by assessing the costs of compelling compliance against the defaulting
24 party.” (Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1179.) Conduct to be sanctioned under
25 the Discovery Act need not be “willful.” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277,
26 1287.)
27 The party seeking to avoid the imposition of sanctions has the burden to show that one of|
28 the exceptions applies. (Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1435.)
ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
“Substantial justification” is generally defined as being justified to a degree that could satisfy a
reasonable person, or stated another way, that it has a reasonable basis both in law and fact. (/d.
at pp. 1434-35.)
At the hearing, Velocity addressed its burden by arguing that it has complied with the
Discovery Act in some respects. However, the statutes require that the court consider the bases
for Velocity’s position in the disputes now before the court, and evaluate that position for
“substantial justification.”
For the reasons stated above, Velocity has failed to meet its burden to show that its
position is substantially justified.
10 As to the amount of monetary sanctions, the court has an independent right and
11 responsibility to review requested attorney fees and only award so much as it determines
12 reasonable. (See Garabedian v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th
13 123, 127-128.) In assessing whether a request for fees is reasonable, the court may evaluate the
14 reasonableness of the claimed hourly rates, the reasonable necessity of the tasks performed, and
15 the reasonableness of the amount of time spent on identified tasks; the court may rely on its own
16 experience and knowledge in determining the reasonable value of the attorney’s services.
17 (Niederer v. Ferreira (1985) 189 Cal.App.3d 1485, 1507.) In considering a request for fees, the
18 trial court is not bound by the rates claimed or the number of hours stated to have been worked;
19 the trial court, familiar with the factual and legal issues and the written and oral presentations of
20 the parties, may determine the value of the legal services provided. (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976)
21 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 622-23 [affirming trial court’s award of fees].)
22 Each Cross-Complainant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $7,765.72,
25 representing a total of 15.4 hours at $500 per hour plus a filing fee of $65.72.
24 Having reviewed the written presentation, the court evaluates the value of the work, not
25 just the hours spent. To accomplish the tasks reflected by the work product presented to the
26 court, at an efficiency level consistent with an hourly rate of $500, in the court’s estimation the
27 time spent on these tasks is reasonable. The filing fee was incurred in each case, and each Cross-
28 Complainant is entitled to recover that sum as a cost. However, it is not reasonable to double the
ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
attorney time spent because the same counsel representing both Cross-Complainants used the
same work product in two cases, changing the name of the Cross-Complainant. Accordingly, the
court awards in each case attorney fees and costs of $3,915.72 (one-half the total of $7,700 plus
the filing fee).
IV. CONCLUSION
The court orders as follows:
1) The motion for monetary sanctions is granted. Velocity shall pay to each Cross-Complainant,
within ten days of this order, $3,915.72 in costs and attorney fees incurred in making this motion.
2) The motion to compel further responses is granted as to Form Interrogatories 12.1 and 15.1;
10 Special Interrogatories 1-6 and 8-14; and Request for Production of Documents 1-17 and 19-32.
11 On or before March 19, 2021, Velocity shall serve on Cross-Complainants verified further
12 responses, code-compliant and without objections except for attorney-client privilege, to Form
13 Interrogatories 12.1 and 15.1; Special Interrogatories 1-6 and 8-14; and Request for Production
14 of Documents 1-17 and 19-32, and produce all responsive documents.
15 3) The motion to compel is granted as to Special Interrogatory No. 7 and Request for Production|
16 No 18. Counsel shall immediately meet and confer to identify a third-party administrator to
17 manage the publication of a Belaire-West notice and to prepare the text of the notice.
18 4) Ifcounsel cannot agree by noon on Wednesday, March 3, on the administrator and the text of
19 the notice, Cross-Complainants may contact the court that afternoon and arrange for an Informal
20 Discovery Conference on Thursday, March 4, for which counsel shall make themselves
21 available. Any disagreement about the identity of the administrator and the text of the notice
22 will be resolved at the IDC. In any event, the parties shall present the form of notice to the court
25 for approval before it is sent to the administrator.
24 5) Within ten days of this order, Velocity shall submit to the administrator all information
25 necessary to accomplish the publication of the Belaire-West notice.
26 6) The parties shall bear equally the cost of the notice.
27 7) As to Special Interrogatory No. 7 and Request for Production No 18, service by Velocity on
28 Cross-Complainants of verified further responses, code-compliant and without objections except
ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
for the attorney-client privilege, and production of responsive documents, is stayed pending the
Belaire-West notice. Within 20 days of receipt of the Belaire-West notice results from the
administrator, Velocity shall serve such responses and produce such documents, subject to the
opt-outs received as a result of the Belaire-West notice.
The court requests that counsel meet and confer concerning whether these cases should
be consolidated. If the parties agree, counsel should submit a stipulation and proposed order, and
if not, counsel should be prepared to discuss this subject at the next Case Management
Conference.
2
10 Dated: February 26, 2021 Ulu
Patricia M. Lucas
11
Judge of the Superior Court
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
Preview
16CV300096 Santa Clara — Civil CIV-130 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and addross) FOR COURT USE ONLY ‘System System — Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575) Consumer Law Center, Inc. Electronically Filed 1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104 by Superior Court of CA, San Jose, California 95112-4610 TeLepHoNE No.(408) 294-6100 ax wo. onsonan(408) 294-6190 County of Santa Clara, E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optiona)) fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com on 2/26/2021 3:12 PM ATTORNEY FOR (Name): MARIA ANTONIA CANUL Reviewed By: System System SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Case #16CV300096 STREET ADDRESS: 191 North First Street Envelope: 5927352 MAILING ADDRESS: 191 North First Street CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Jose, CA 95113 BRANCH NAME: Downtown San Jose PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: MARIA ANTONIA CANUL CASE NUMBER: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 16CV300096 OR ORDER (Check one): (K) UNLIMITED CASE (CC) Limitep case (Amount demanded (Amount demanded was exceeded $25,000) $25,000 or less) TO ALL PARTIES: il judgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date): February 26, 2021 2. Acopy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice. Mh Date: February 26, 2021 Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575) See one neenece done (eal one arco (SIGNATURE) Page 1 of 2 Form Approved for Optional Use NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER wirw.courtinfo.ca.gov Judicial Council of California CIV-130 [New January 1, 201 CB Essential ceb.com {2\Forms- CIV-130 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC CASE NUMBER: LL 16CV300096 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: MARIA ANTONIA CANUL PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER (NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order if you are a party in the action. The person who served the notice must complete this proof of service.) 1 | am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. | am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took place, and my residence or business address is (specify): 1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104 San Jose, California 95112-4610 | served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order by enclosing it in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid and (check one): a (Cd deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service. b. [4] placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, following this business's usual practices, with which | am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service. The Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order was mailed: a. on (date): February 26, 2021 b. from (city and state): San Jose, California The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: a Name of person served: Name of person served: Molshree Gupta, Chapman, Glucksman, et al Street address: 11900 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800 Street address: City: Los Angeles City: State and zip code: CA 90064-0704 State and zip code: b. Name of person served: Name of person served: Street address: Street address: City: City: State and zip code: State and zip code: (C] Names and addresses of additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).) 5. Number of pages attached 1] _ | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: February 26, 2021 Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575) (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) Page 2 of 2 CIV-130 [New January 1, 2010} NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER CEB’ | Essential cebcom | {2)Forms: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 11 12 VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No. 16CV300096 13 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES 14 VS. 15 MARIA ANTONIA CANUL, 16 Defendant. 17 MARIA ANTONIA CANUL, on behalf of herself 18 and all others similarly situated, 19 Cross-Complainant, 20 vs. 21 VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company; and ROES 1 22 through 10, inclusive, 25 Cross-Defendants. 24 25 The above-entitled action came on for hearing on Wednesday, February 24, 2021, at 26 1:30 p.m. in Department 3, the Honorable Patricia M. Lucas presiding. Having reviewed and 27 considered the written submissions filed by the parties, and having listened carefully to 28 arguments of counsel, the court rules as follows: ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES I. INTRODUCTION In the two related cases of 16CV300096 and 18CV338986, Plaintiff Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) asserted claims against defendants Maria Antonia Canul (“Canul’”) and Eva Marcelo Pascual (“Pascual”), respectively, for collection of debts. Except for the dates on which the Complaints were filed, the two dockets are essentially identical. The Complaint in 16CV300096 was filed on September 20, 2016, and in 18CV338986, on December 10, 2018. Each Complaint sets forth the following causes of action: (1) Open Book Account; and (2) Money Lent. In each case, an Answer and a Cross-Complaint were filed on February 19, 2019. 10 The Cross-Complaints set forth a putative class action claim in which Canul and Pascual 11 (collectively, “Cross-Complainants) allege, in a single cause of action, that Velocity has a routine 12 practice of filing and serving collection complaints that do not comply with the California Fair 13 Debt Buying Practices Act. 14 Now before the court are Cross-Complainants’ motions to compel further discovery 15 responses. Specifically, Cross-Complainants move for an order compelling Velocity to provide 16 responses without objection to Cross-Complainants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special 17 Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents and Electronically Stored 18 Information (“ESI”) (Set One), and to produce responsive documents and ESI in its possession, 19 custody, or control. 20 Il. CHRONOLOGY OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND RESPONSES 21 Two years ago, on February 19, 2019, Cross-Complainants served the discovery requests 22 at issue in these motions: specifically, Form Interrogatories 12.1 and 15.1; Special 25 Interrogatories 1-14; and Request for Production of Documents 1-32. 24 On March 26, 2019, Velocity’s responses were due, but none were served. Although no 25 meet and confer effort is required when no responses at all are served, Cross-Complainants wrote| 26 to Velocity on April 20, 2019, requesting that responses be served by April 30. Velocity did not 27 serve responses or acknowledge the email. (Declaration of Fred Schwinn, filed May 7, 2019.) 28 ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES On May 7, 2019, Cross-Complainants filed motions to compel responses. The motions specifically sought responses “without objections”: that is, that objections be deemed waived by Velocity’s failure to timely respond. Velocity did not oppose the motions, or contest the July 11,| 2019 tentative rulings granting the motions and imposing monetary sanctions. Formal orders followed on July 23, 2019, and notices of entry of the orders were filed on August 13, 2019. Still Velocity served no responses. On August 6, 2019, Velocity substituted new counsel. On March 6, 2020, Velocity served responses, apparently unverified, stating many objections and providing little information, and provided an incomplete production of 10 documents. On May 12, 2020, Cross-Complainants provided to Velocity a 16-page letter 11 explaining the deficiencies in the responses and requesting further responses by May 29, 2020. 12 (Declaration of Matthew Salmonsen, filed January 25, 2021.) More than a month later, on June 13 18, 2020, Velocity responded asserting that Cross-Complainants were entitled to no discovery at 14 all because they were not members of the alleged class. This assertion was in turn based on the 15 premise that while the Cross-Complaints pled that Velocity had filed and served collection 16 complaints without attaching documents “evidencing the debtor’s agreement to the debt” as 17 tequired by statute, the Cross-Complaints themselves showed this allegation to be false because 18 they attached final Truth In Lending Disclosures which, Velocity claimed, evidences Cross- 19 Complainants 2 6, ‘agreement to the debt.” As to several specific responses, Velocity agreed to 20 provide supplemental responses but did not offer when those would be served. 21 On June 24, 2020, Cross-Complainants responded to Velocity’s letter, pointing out the 22 inaccuracy of the premise that Cross-Complainants are entitled to no discovery and addressing 25 the commentary on each request. The letter requested amended responses by July 3, 2020. 24 Velocity did not respond. 25 On July 9, 2020, Cross-Complainants wrote again, requesting further responses. Velocity 26 requested more time, but still no further responses were forthcoming. 27 On October 7, 2020, Cross-Complainants wrote again. Velocity claimed to be working 28 on the responses. ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES On November 10, 2020, Cross-Complainants wrote again. In response, Velocity for the first time requested a stipulated protective order, which has now been entered. Velocity has not served further responses. il. DISCUSSION A. Cross-Complainants’ Meet-and-Confer Efforts Were Adequate. Velocity argues that Cross-Complainants > «6, counsel has dodged significant efforts by Cross-Defendants’ counsel to engage in meaningful meet and confer” (Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses (“Opposition”), at 4:9-10), but the record shows that this is not correct. Velocity also asserts that no informal discovery conference has yet taken place as 10 required in the complex civil litigation department, but at the time Cross-Complainants filed 11 these motions, these cases were not yet assigned to the complex civil litigation department. 12 Evaluating the history of correspondence between counsel and the positions the parties 13 have taken, the court finds that Cross-Complainants have made a sufficient effort to meet and 14 onfer, and that the issues are ready to be decided. 15 B. Cross-Complainants Are Entitled to Further Responses 16 1 Velocity’s Objections Are Waived 17 By failing to respond at all to Cross-Complainants’ discovery requests, Velocity has 18 waived its objections pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(a) and 2031.300(a). 19 Velocity offers no argument to the contrary. The motions to compel responses--which requested 20 responses “without objections”--were granted, and Velocity has never sought an order relieving 21 it from such waiver. Accordingly, except as discussed below with respect to privacy and 22 attorney-client privilege, Velocity’s objections cannot be considered. Even if Velocity’s 25 objections were not waived, Velocity has not undertaken, much less met, its burden to justify the 24 remaining objections. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210.) 25 2. Velocity’s Relevance Objection Has Been Waived and In Any Event Has No Merit. 26 27 Although its objections have been waived, Velocity submits its primary argument based 28 on a disfavored objection: relevance. Velocity contends that Cross-Complainants’ discovery does not meet the very broad definition of relevance applied in discovery: i.e., the requests are ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Velocity does not question the fundamental principle that discovery is very broad indeed—to the extent that even “fishing expeditions” are generally allowed. (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal. App.4th 1539, 1546.) Velocity asserts that Cross-Complainants are not entitled to any discovery (i.e., no discovery is relevant to the ‘subject matter” of the action) because “[t]he ‘subject matter’ of the Cross-Complainant is a simple question of law--whether a final Truth in Lending disclosure associated with a loan transaction is a ‘document evidencing the debtor's agreement to the debt’ under California Civil Code Section 1788.52.” (Opposition, at p. 2:5-8.) 10 For the reasons provided to Velocity by Cross-Complainants during the meet-and-confer 11 process and explained again in Cross-Complainants’ Reply Memorandum of Points and 12 Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses, Velocity’s assertion that the 13 final Truth in Lending disclosure, before the transaction, is a “document evidencing the debtor’s 14 agreement to the debt” is wholly unsupported by its arguments. In any event, the existence of a 15 dispositive “question of law” does not preclude discovery. The phrase “subject matter” does not 16 lend itself to precise definition; it is broader than relevancy to the issues, which is the trial 17 standard for admissibility. (Laddon v. Superior Court (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 391.) For 18 purposes of discovery, information is “relevant to the subject matter” if it might reasonably assist 19 a party in evaluating the case or preparing for trial. (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 20 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1616.) 21 Velocity argues that Cross-Complainants’ allegations are deficient, but even if that were 22 true, the procedure for addressing the alleged deficiency is not to withhold discovery. Even if 25 Velocity, in good faith, “is unable to comprehend Cross-Complainant’s position regarding 24 Section 1788.52, specifically why a final Truth in Lending disclosure associated with a loan 25 transaction is not a ‘document evidencing the debtor's agreement to the debt 399 (Opposition, at 26 4:19-22), Velocity’s confusion is not a basis to withhold discovery. Velocity cites no case that 27 so holds. Velocity states but does not explain its conclusion that it is unable “to search for 28 relevant class information because of a pleading deficiency.” (/d. at p. 6:26.) ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES 3. Velocity Must Provide Code-Compliant Further Responses. Velocity must provide verified further responses. It does not appear from Exhibits E-G to the Salmonsen Declaration that Velocity’s responses were verified. While the court does not determine on this record that Velocity, as the holder of the attorney-client privilege, intended to waive that privilege when its attorneys failed to respond, should Velocity decide to invoke the privilege to withhold documents, full compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivisions (b) and (c) is required. Velocity does not argue and has not justified any privacy objection relating to itself or its business: the only privacy right Velocity argues is that of third parties. (Opposition, at p. 11:14- 10 12:19.) Accordingly, no documents or information are to be withheld on the basis of a right of 11 privacy belonging to Velocity. To the extent Velocity’s responses stated such an objection, it is 12 overruled as Velocity has made no effort to justify it. Thus, for example, the requested discovery] 13 concerning Velocity’s net worth, which Cross-Complainants correctly argue is relevant under 14 Civil Code section 1788.62, subdivision (b), must be provided. 15 Velocity argues that it asserts the privacy rights of third parties in connection with two 16 interrogatories and one document request: 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 18 State the number, names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all California residents against Whom YOU filed collection Complaints in the form of Exhibit “1” from 19 December 10, 2017, through the present. 20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 21 Please IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS with any role or responsibility for drafting, 22 authorizing, or approving the use of collection Complaints in the form of Exhibit “1.” YOUR answer should include references to any and all DOCUMENTS which support 25 your answer. 24 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: 25 ANY DOCUMENTS and ESI RELATING to or EVIDENCING the number, names, and 26 addresses of ANY California residents against whom YOU filed collection Complaints in| the form of Exhibit “1” from December 10, 2017, through the present. 27 28 i ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES Velocity offers no explanation how the rights of third parties are implicated by Special Interrogatory No. 9, which seeks the identity of persons acting on behalf of Velocity. The privacy objection is overruled as to Special Interrogatory No. 9. Special Interrogatory No. 7 and Request for Production No. 18 seek the number of individuals against whom Velocity filed collection Complaints in the form of Exhibit 1 (a copy of a complaint filed in the Santa Clara Superior Court), production of such Complaints and related documents, and the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of those individuals. In Exhibit 1, Velocity makes public disclosure of “the name and last known address of the debtor as| they appeared in the charge-off creditor’s records,” as required by Civil Code section 1788.58, 10 subdivision (a)(7). 11 Cross-Complainants contend that Velocity’s disclosure in the public complaints requires 12 that Velocity must now disclose to Cross-Complainants all the information and documentation 13 they request. However, the potential class members are not deprived of all privacy rights 14 because Velocity placed in a court file their names and an address. In any event, Cross- 15 Complainants’ requests go beyond the scope of the information Velocity disclosed. 16 Generally, discovery of contact information for potential class members is handled 17 through the process described in Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal. 18 App.4th 554, 562, cited by Cross-Complainants. Although Belaire-West was itself a wage-and- 19 hour case, this procedure is also used for class actions outside the employment context. (See, 20 e.g., In re Ins. Installment Fee Cases (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1426-29.) 21 Velocity does not acknowledge the Belaire-West solution or explain why it would not 22 adequately address the circumstances of this case. Certainly, this case does not involve the 25 unique situation in Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 820, 828, on 24 which Velocity relies. In that case, the Belaire-West process as ordered by the trial court in a 25 headless class action offended a statutory policy entitling persons convicted of minor marijuana 26 crimes to have those criminal records “treated as if they never existed.” 27 At the hearing, Cross-Complainants suggested that the court defer until after class 28 certification Velocity’s responses to Special Interrogatory No. 7 and Request for Production No. ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 18 as well as production of documents responsive thereto other than the collection Complaints themselves. In the interim, Cross-Complainants suggest, the court should order production of the collection Complaints without a Belaire-West notice. Cross-Complainants suggested that this would minimize the need to publish class-wide notices. However, Belaire-West and related cases do not provide support for this suggestion. Accordingly, the parties are ordered to share equally the cost of using a third-party administrator to contact potential class members and to provide them with the opportunity to opt out of providing their information to Cross-Complainants. To be clear, when Velocity provides the information to the administrator for the Belaire-West notice, that information will include any| 10 addresses known to Velocity, not just the addresses disclosed in the public complaints. 11 Cc. Monetary Sanctions 12 When a motion to compel or limit discovery is made and lost, the recovery of monetary 13 sanctions is the default result, according to the Legislature’s design of the Discovery Act. Two 14 statutes on which Cross-Complainants rely contain the following direction to the court: the court 15 “shall” impose a monetary sanction on a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a discovery 16 motion unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or 17 that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc. 18 §§ 2030.300, subdivision (d); and 2031.310, subdivision (h).) 19 “[T]he purpose of discovery sanctions ‘is not “to provide a weapon for punishment, a 20 forfeiture and the avoidance of a trial on the merits, ... but to prevent abuse of the discovery 21 process and correct the problem presented....” (Parker v. Wolters Kluwer United States, Inc. 22 (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 285, 301.) Monetary sanctions encourage “voluntary compliance with 25 discovery procedures by assessing the costs of compelling compliance against the defaulting 24 party.” (Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1179.) Conduct to be sanctioned under 25 the Discovery Act need not be “willful.” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 26 1287.) 27 The party seeking to avoid the imposition of sanctions has the burden to show that one of| 28 the exceptions applies. (Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1435.) ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES “Substantial justification” is generally defined as being justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person, or stated another way, that it has a reasonable basis both in law and fact. (/d. at pp. 1434-35.) At the hearing, Velocity addressed its burden by arguing that it has complied with the Discovery Act in some respects. However, the statutes require that the court consider the bases for Velocity’s position in the disputes now before the court, and evaluate that position for “substantial justification.” For the reasons stated above, Velocity has failed to meet its burden to show that its position is substantially justified. 10 As to the amount of monetary sanctions, the court has an independent right and 11 responsibility to review requested attorney fees and only award so much as it determines 12 reasonable. (See Garabedian v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 13 123, 127-128.) In assessing whether a request for fees is reasonable, the court may evaluate the 14 reasonableness of the claimed hourly rates, the reasonable necessity of the tasks performed, and 15 the reasonableness of the amount of time spent on identified tasks; the court may rely on its own 16 experience and knowledge in determining the reasonable value of the attorney’s services. 17 (Niederer v. Ferreira (1985) 189 Cal.App.3d 1485, 1507.) In considering a request for fees, the 18 trial court is not bound by the rates claimed or the number of hours stated to have been worked; 19 the trial court, familiar with the factual and legal issues and the written and oral presentations of 20 the parties, may determine the value of the legal services provided. (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 21 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 622-23 [affirming trial court’s award of fees].) 22 Each Cross-Complainant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $7,765.72, 25 representing a total of 15.4 hours at $500 per hour plus a filing fee of $65.72. 24 Having reviewed the written presentation, the court evaluates the value of the work, not 25 just the hours spent. To accomplish the tasks reflected by the work product presented to the 26 court, at an efficiency level consistent with an hourly rate of $500, in the court’s estimation the 27 time spent on these tasks is reasonable. The filing fee was incurred in each case, and each Cross- 28 Complainant is entitled to recover that sum as a cost. However, it is not reasonable to double the ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES attorney time spent because the same counsel representing both Cross-Complainants used the same work product in two cases, changing the name of the Cross-Complainant. Accordingly, the court awards in each case attorney fees and costs of $3,915.72 (one-half the total of $7,700 plus the filing fee). IV. CONCLUSION The court orders as follows: 1) The motion for monetary sanctions is granted. Velocity shall pay to each Cross-Complainant, within ten days of this order, $3,915.72 in costs and attorney fees incurred in making this motion. 2) The motion to compel further responses is granted as to Form Interrogatories 12.1 and 15.1; 10 Special Interrogatories 1-6 and 8-14; and Request for Production of Documents 1-17 and 19-32. 11 On or before March 19, 2021, Velocity shall serve on Cross-Complainants verified further 12 responses, code-compliant and without objections except for attorney-client privilege, to Form 13 Interrogatories 12.1 and 15.1; Special Interrogatories 1-6 and 8-14; and Request for Production 14 of Documents 1-17 and 19-32, and produce all responsive documents. 15 3) The motion to compel is granted as to Special Interrogatory No. 7 and Request for Production| 16 No 18. Counsel shall immediately meet and confer to identify a third-party administrator to 17 manage the publication of a Belaire-West notice and to prepare the text of the notice. 18 4) Ifcounsel cannot agree by noon on Wednesday, March 3, on the administrator and the text of 19 the notice, Cross-Complainants may contact the court that afternoon and arrange for an Informal 20 Discovery Conference on Thursday, March 4, for which counsel shall make themselves 21 available. Any disagreement about the identity of the administrator and the text of the notice 22 will be resolved at the IDC. In any event, the parties shall present the form of notice to the court 25 for approval before it is sent to the administrator. 24 5) Within ten days of this order, Velocity shall submit to the administrator all information 25 necessary to accomplish the publication of the Belaire-West notice. 26 6) The parties shall bear equally the cost of the notice. 27 7) As to Special Interrogatory No. 7 and Request for Production No 18, service by Velocity on 28 Cross-Complainants of verified further responses, code-compliant and without objections except ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES for the attorney-client privilege, and production of responsive documents, is stayed pending the Belaire-West notice. Within 20 days of receipt of the Belaire-West notice results from the administrator, Velocity shall serve such responses and produce such documents, subject to the opt-outs received as a result of the Belaire-West notice. The court requests that counsel meet and confer concerning whether these cases should be consolidated. If the parties agree, counsel should submit a stipulation and proposed order, and if not, counsel should be prepared to discuss this subject at the next Case Management Conference. 2 10 Dated: February 26, 2021 Ulu Patricia M. Lucas 11 Judge of the Superior Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES