Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV13433, Date: 2024-03-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV13433 Hearing Date: March 18, 2024 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Further Discovery Responses To Request For
Production Of Documents Set One And For Monetary Sanctions Pursuant To C.C.P.
Section 2031.320(B) Against General Motors LLC And Erskine Law Group, PC. In
The Amount Of $2,004.15.
The Court continues the motion to 4/24/24 at 8:30 a.m. Counsel for Plaintiff is directed to Department 55's Courtroom Information page on the LASC website, which explains that the Court expects parties to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference prior to filing any motion to compel further responses. The parties must first exhaust all meet and confer efforts, and, if they are truly at an impasse, schedule an IDC to discuss the discovery disputes with the Court. Counsel did not schedule an IDC and instead jumped to filing a costly discovery motion, which is exactly what the IDC process is supposed to avoid.
The record before the Court makes clear that the parties did not exhaust their meet and confer efforts. Indeed, there is no indication counsel ever picked up a telephone and had a direct conversation with one another to try and resolve their dispute. Counsel for both parties have extensive experience in Lemon Law cases and therefore know the types of documents that are typically exchanged during discovery. Given counsel's experience and expertise, the Court expects they will be able to reach an agreement on the disputed document requests without Court intervention. In the event they cannot, the Court expects them to schedule an IDC and follow the Court's rules for preparing for the IDC.
