Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV17171, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17171    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

The Court will continue the motion to a date mutually agreed upon by the parties at the hearing. Counsel for Plaintiff is reminded, for the second time this week, that she needs to familiarize herself with Department 55's Courtroom Information page on the LASC website. That page 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. She instead filed a motion to compel further responses days after getting an initial meet and confer letter response from defense counsel. This hasty action only serves to increase the costs of litgiation, 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. They exchanged one set of meet and confer letters, that is all. There is nothing in the record showing that counsel ever spoke to one another on the telephone and had a direct conversation to try and resolve their disputes. Counsel for both parties are well-versed in Lemon Law cases and therefore know the types of documents and information 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 issues without Court intervention. In the event they cannot, the Court expects them to schedule and IDC and follow the Court's rules for preparing for the IDC.