This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/09/2021 at 01:03:23 (UTC).

JESUS MARTIN VAZQUEZ, VS. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOL DISTRICT

Case Summary

On 11/02/2015 JESUS MARTIN VAZQUEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOL DISTRICT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are BRIAN F. GASDIA, RAUL A. SAHAGUN, MARGARET MILLER BERNAL and LORI ANN FOURNIER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9968

  • Filing Date:

    11/02/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

BRIAN F. GASDIA

RAUL A. SAHAGUN

MARGARET MILLER BERNAL

LORI ANN FOURNIER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

VAZQUEZ JESUS MARTIN

VAZQUEZ MARTIN

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-100

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Guardian Ad Litem and Plaintiff

VAZQUEZ MARTIN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BIREN LAW GROUP

BIREN ANDREW G.

BIREN MATTHEW BENNETT

RODRIGUEZ DANIEL

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

ITKIN YOSEF Y.

RUIZ RODOLFO FLORENTINO

VANDERFORD & RUIZ LLP

TORRES STEPHANIE D.

CHANG CHLOE SUH-YON

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFF TO CONTINUE TRIA...)

9/27/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFF TO CONTINUE TRIA...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES; HEAR...)

10/17/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES; HEAR...)

Order - ORDER RE: 12/05/19 HEARING

12/5/2019: Order - ORDER RE: 12/05/19 HEARING

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

5/5/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER ADVANCING AND VACATING TRIAL DATES;)

6/5/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER ADVANCING AND VACATING TRIAL DATES;)

Declaration - Declaration Declaration of Yosef Itkin in support of M.T.C.

12/18/2017: Declaration - Declaration Declaration of Yosef Itkin in support of M.T.C.

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Order

3/13/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Order

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

4/24/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-04-24 00:00:00

4/24/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-04-24 00:00:00

Motion re: -

7/20/2018: Motion re: -

Motion for Summary Judgment

8/15/2018: Motion for Summary Judgment

Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and Related Dates; [Proposed] Order

1/18/2019: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and Related Dates; [Proposed] Order

Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

4/16/2019: Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

5/5/2016: SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/27/2016: DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

DECLARATION OF YOSEF Y. ITKIN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION, AND AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAIN

10/20/2016: DECLARATION OF YOSEF Y. ITKIN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION, AND AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAIN

DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF MATTHEW B.F. BIREN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UMFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTTFF

6/29/2017: DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF MATTHEW B.F. BIREN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UMFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTTFF

NOTICE OF RULING RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/3/2017: NOTICE OF RULING RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

206 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/09/2021
  • Hearing11/09/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2021
  • Hearing11/09/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2021
  • Hearing10/26/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2020
  • DocketAssociation of Attorney; Filed by JESUS MARTIN VAZQUEZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Court's Minute Order on Trial Setting Conference and Trial Setting Order); Filed by JESUS MARTIN VAZQUEZ (Plaintiff); MARTIN VAZQUEZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department F; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department F; Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate (motion not to be heard on 10/7/2020; calendared for the purpose of resetting on date of trial) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Clerical Error

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference; Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate moti...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2020
  • DocketTrial Setting Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
491 More Docket Entries
  • 11/13/2015
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2015
  • DocketNOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2015
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2015
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by JESUS MARTIN VAZQUEZ (Plaintiff); MARTIN VAZQUEZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2015
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2015
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by JESUS MARTIN VAZQUEZ (Plaintiff); MARTIN VAZQUEZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2015
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2015
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES; REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2015
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued (PI; REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL; 11/02/15 CCH524880081 $435.00); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2015
  • DocketApplication - Miscellaneous (FOR APPOINTMENT OF G.A.L. ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC599968    Hearing Date: September 22, 2020    Dept: G

TENTATIVE:

Defendant’s Motion to Compel further responses to supplemental interrogatories, set on is granted.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental responses within 15 days. Sanctions are imposed against plaintiff and counsel, jointly and severally, in the sum of $1,387.50 payable within 30 days.

If “all” sides submit to the tentative ruling, please email the Clerk in Department G at: NRaya@LACourt.org

VAZQUEZ v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

CASE NO.:  BC599968

HEARING: 9/22/20

JUDGE: JOHN A. TORRIBIO

#7

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s motion to compel further responses to supplemental interrogatories, set one is GRANTED.  

Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental responses within 15 days.  Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and counsel, jointly and severally, in the sum of $1,387.50, payable within 30 days.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District moves to compel further responses from to supplemental interrogatories, set one pursuant to CCP § 2030.300.

CCP § 2030.300 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general.  The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration.  (CCP § 2030.300(b).) 

The court finds Plaintiff’s responses are incomplete and nonresponsive.  Each answer in the response must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.  (CCP § 2030.220(a).)  Plaintiff’s single boilerplate and vague response without specifying whether he is in actuality supplementing any previous response, is incomplete and nonresponsive.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends the request is burdensome.  However, it is not enough that the questions will require a lot of work to answer.  It must be shown that the burden of answering is so unjust that it amounts to oppression. (West Pico Furn. Co. v. Sup.Ct., supra.)  Much time has passed since Plaintiff’s responses to the original set of special interrogatories.  The request to supplement is reasonable and proper.  If it was not burdensome to provide original responses, it is not burdensome now.

Regardless, Plaintiff is willing to serve supplemental responses.  Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental responses within 15 days. 

Sanctions:  CCP § 2023.010(d) authorizes the court to impose sanctions for failure to respond to discovery without substantial justification.  

Here, sanctions are warranted because Plaintiff failed to serve adequate responses, and failed to properly meet and confer.  The court finds of $1,387.50 is reasonable.  Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and counsel, jointly and severally, in the sum of $1,387.50, payable within 30 days.

Case Number: BC599968    Hearing Date: August 06, 2020    Dept: C

VAZQUEZ v. LAUSD

CASE NO.: BC599968

HEARING: 08/06/2020

JUDGE: JOHN A. TORRIBIO

#9

TENATIVE ORDER

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, Set One directed towards Plaintiff is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Defendant to give Notice.

Background

This is a personal injury action.

Plaintiff Jesus Martin Vazquez, by and through his Guardian ad Litem Martin Vazquez, ("Plaintiff") commenced this action against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District ("Defendant").

Plaintiff, a 20-year-old special education student, alleges that he was involved in an ATV accident on March 9, 2015 during an automotive repair class at Defendant’s Slawson Occupation Center. Plaintiff alleges that he received no training from his instructor on how to operate the ATV and he was not provided safety or protective clothing for him to use. While Plaintiff was test driving the ATV that he repaired, it failed to operate correctly, causing him to fall resulting in personal injuries including a traumatic brain injury.

On November 2, 2015. Plaintiff filed his initial complaint.

On September 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed the operative third amended complaint (“TAC”) asserting a sole cause of action for negligence.

On November 4, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to compel further responses to Defendant’s Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”). Defendant also seeks $1,387.50 for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorneys.

On March 24, 2020, the Court continued the original hearing date from April 9, 2020 to August 6, 2020 because of Covid-19.

On July 24, 2020, Plaintiff opposed.

On July 30, 2020, Defendant filed a reply.

Although not subject to this ruling, the Court notes that Defendant filed a separate motion to compel further responses (involving special interrogatories) that is scheduled for a hearing on September 22, 2020.

Legal authority

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to a demand for inspection when the court finds that: “(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[;] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[; or] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

The burden is on the moving party to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

Meet and Confer

A party making a motion to compel further responses must also include a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

Defendant’s counsel filed a declaration detailing meet and confer efforts. Specifically, on September 24, 2019, Defendant emailed a meet and confer letter. (Chang Decl. Ex. B.) Defendant’s counsel declares that Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to respond to this letter or Defendant’s RPD. (Id. ¶ 6.) The Court has no reason to dispute this account. Although the Court would have preferred additional attempts to communicate, e.g., phone call, considering that Plaintiff’s counsel does not object to the meet and confer efforts, the meet and confer correspondence is sufficient to show that Defendant tried in good faith to resolve the discovery dispute before filing this motion.

Therefore, the Court addresses the merits.

Plaintiff did not file a responsive separate statement

Defendant notes that Plaintiff did not file a responsive separate statement. (See reply 5:10-22.) However, Defendant does not explain why this lack of action is fatal. Notably, Defendant relies on authority that provide that the Court can deny a motion because of the failure by the moving party to file a separate statement. This situation is not comparable to a motion for summary judgment or adjudication. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(3); see Oldcastle Precast, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 554, 568.)

Additionally, Defendant’s filed separate statement includes Defendant’s objections to the RPD and therefore they do give the Court the information to determine Plaintiff’s position.

Discussion

On December 21, 2018, Defendant served the RPD. (Chang Decl. Ex. A.) Defendant’s RPD requested Plaintiff to supplement any of Plaintiff’s previous responses to other document requests with any documents to the extent any previous answer is no longer correct and complete:

Please review YOUR answers to all Requests for Production of Documents previously served on YOU in this action. If, for any reason, any answer is no longer correct and complete, identify the answer and state any information and/or provide any documents that are necessary to make it correct and complete as of this date.¿

[For the purpose of these requests, "YOU" and YOUR" refer to Plaintiff JESUS MARTIN VAZQUEZ, and each and all of his respective agents, employees, attorneys, and anyone else acting on behalf of JESUS MARTIN VAZQUEZ.]

(Ibid.)

Defendant made this request pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.050, which subdivision (a) states:

(a) In addition to the demands for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling permitted by this chapter, a party may propound a supplemental demand to inspect, copy, test, or sample any later acquired or discovered documents, tangible things, land or other property, or electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.

On September 20, 2019, Plaintiff served his response to the RPD containing only objections. (Id. Ex. C.) Plaintiff in his response refers to documents already exchanged in discovery, including the transcripts from depositions, academic and medical records and arguments made in motion practice.

Here, it is first necessary to examine the specific request at issue, which is produced in full above. Notably, this request does not ask Plaintiff to answer “yes” or “no” to any specific request whether Plaintiff’s previous response is “no longer correct and complete.” Nor is it phrased in a more straightforward way like:

Please review your previous responses. For each response, identify whether the previous response is still correct and complete as of the date of your response to this supplemental request. If it is not correct and complete, identify the information and/or[1] provide any documents to make it correct and complete as of the date of your response to this supplemental request

In other words, Plaintiff only had an obligation to respond at all to the extent that Plaintiff’s original answer needed to be updated. Defendant’s request is so vague that it is unsurprising that Plaintiff’s response also is vague and not what Defendant wanted to receive in response.

Notwithstanding that Plaintiff has no duty to update his responses on his own initiative (see Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1328), Plaintiff does have an obligation to do so when Defendant made a proper supplemental demand pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.050. Accordingly, because Defendant made a proper demand and Plaintiff’s stated objection suggests that his previous responses are now incorrect and incomplete, Plaintiff has an obligation[2] to respond to Defendant’s request.

Essentially, the crux of the Plaintiff’s argument is that he can refer Defendant to documents already produced in discovery without supplying specific documents or otherwise identifying any request those documents are responsive to.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff for two reasons.

First, Defendant fatally drafted the supplemental request for Plaintiff to “identify the answer and state any information and/or provide any documents that are necessary to make it correct and complete as of this date.”(Chang Decl. Ex. A, emphasis added.) Notwithstanding that Plaintiff did not identify the answer and Plaintiff must do so, Plaintiff only needed to state the information needed to update the previous response. Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has no obligation to summarize the contents of the documents that provide the information because Plaintiff did not propound an interrogatory. Plaintiff had no obligation to produce these documents because of Defendant’s phrasing of the request.

Second, Plaintiff’s answer referring Defendant to documents produced in discovery is not evasive. Plaintiff identifies specific documents that are more than just “see my file,” though Plaintiff could have done more. (See separate statement 4:15-20, relying on Fuss v. Superior Court (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 807, 815-817 [involving interrogatory].) Again, the Court notes that Plaintiff has no obligation to summarize the contents of the documents that provide the information because Plaintiff did not propound an interrogatory.

Nevertheless, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff should have identified in his response what previous answer is the subject of Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s RPD. This violates the spirit if not the text of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, subdivision (a). (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a) [“The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following . . . .”], emphasis added.)

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion in part and denies it in part. Plaintiff is to provide a further response identifying the specific answers to Defendant’s previous discovery requests that his response to Defendant’s RPD refer to. Plaintiff is ordered to provide this further verified response no later than 30 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended pursuant to agreement of the parties.

To the extent that Plaintiff maintains an objection based on privilege, Plaintiff “shall provide sufficient factual information for [Defendant] to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).) Plaintiff is not necessarily required to do so in a privilege log, but Plaintiff’s response must provide “sufficient factual information,” and the typical method generally is a privilege log.

Finally, Defendant seeks $1,387.50 in monetary sanctions.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides that a court may impose a monetary sanction for misuse of the discovery process unless a court finds that the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivisions (e) and (h) provide that misuse of the discovery process includes making an unmeritorious objection to discovery and opposing a motion to limit discovery without substantial justification.

The Court denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions because the Court granted Defendant’s motion on a technicality, yet Plaintiff succeeded on the essence of the motion. Therefore, awarding Defendant monetary sanctions is unjust. If the Court were to grant monetary sanctions, the Court would reduce the amount because three hours for appearance time is unreasonable, especially if counsel appears remotely because of Covid-19.

Conclusion

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, Set One directed towards Plaintiff is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Defendant to give Notice.


[1] The use of “and/or” is not ideal as discussed further in the ruling.

[2] It is immaterial whether Plaintiff’s counsel has ever received a motion of this sort before (opposition 2:10-12), notwithstanding this factual contention is not supported by counsel’s declaration. Additionally, Defendant filed this motion before the Covid-19 public health threat and the Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant seeks to waste the Court’s time. (Id. 2:6-9.)

Case Number: BC599968    Hearing Date: November 26, 2019    Dept: SEC

VAZQUEZ, ET AL. v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

CASE NO.: BC599968

HEARING: 11/26/19

Calendar #5

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Vazquez’s motion for order appointing discovery referee is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Vazquez moves for the appointment of a discovery referee.

(a) When the parties do not consent, the court may, upon the written motion of any party, or of its own motion, appoint a referee in the following cases pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (b) of Section 640: (1) When the trial of an issue of fact requires the examination of a long account on either side; in which case the referees may be directed to hear and decide the whole issue, or report upon any specific question of fact involved therein. (2) When the taking of an account is necessary for the information of the court before judgment, or for carrying a judgment or order into effect. (3) When a question of fact, other than upon the pleadings, arises upon motion or otherwise, in any stage of the action. (4) When it is necessary for the information of the court in a special proceeding. (5) When the court in any pending action determines that it is necessary for the court to appoint a referee to hear and determine any and all discovery motions and disputes relevant to discovery in the action and to report findings and make a recommendation thereon. (CCP 639.)

The court finds that a discovery referee is not necessary in this instance. Discovery is closed, except for previously noticed depositions and pending written discovery propounded by both sides. (Notice of Court’s Order filed on 10/1/19.) The remaining motions on calendar are 3 motions to compel further responses filed by LAUSD set for 12/5/19, 3 motions to compel depositions filed by Plaintiff set for 1/23/20, and a motion to compel further responses set for 2/4/20. The current motions on calendar do not support the extraordinary remedy of a discovery referee and the costs associated with such appointment.

Motion is DENIED.