Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 24CHCV00465, Date: 2024-10-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24CHCV00465 Hearing Date: October 25, 2024 Dept: F51
OCTOBER 24,
2024
MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
(Form
Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission,
and Requests for Production of Documents, Set
One)
Los Angeles Superior Court
Case # 24CHCV00465
Motions
filed: 6/26/24
MOVING
PARTY: Plaintiffs
Maria Ramos; and Maria De Los Angeles Hernandez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
RESPONDING
PARTY: Defendant
Kia America, Inc. (“Defendant”)
NOTICE: NOT OK (fails to identify which requests are at issue.)
RELIEF
REQUESTED:
An
order compelling Defendant’s compliance with its responses to Plaintiff’s
Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Set One, agreeing to provide
documents responsive to RFP Nos. 1–17,19–32,33–34, and 44. Plaintiff also seeks to recover
monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel in the combined amount of
$1,860.00.
Plaintiff
also seeks orders compelling Defendant’s further responses to the following
discovery requests:
·
Plaintiffs’
Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 24–25, 29–30, 40–41;
·
Plaintiff’s
Form Interrogatories, Set One, No. 15.1;
·
Plaintiff’s
Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), Set One, Nos 3–5, 12–13, 15, 21–23, and 34;
and
·
Plaintiff’s
RFPs, Set One, Nos. 18, 33 – 41, and 45–46.
Plaintiff
also seeks to recover monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel in
the combined amount of $11,100.00.
//
//
//
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs bring this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act (Civil Code § 1790 et seq.) for a vehicle they purchased on or
around 1/20/22, for which Defendant issued the manufacturer’s express warranty.
(Compl. ¶¶ 8, 18.) Plaintiffs allege that “defects and nonconformities to
warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period.
The nonconformities substantially impaired the use, value and/or safety of the
Subject Vehicle.” (Id. at ¶ 19.)
On 2/14/24, Plaintiffs filed their complaint, alleging
against Defendant a sole cause of action for Violation of Song-Beverly Act –
Breach of Express Warranty. On 4/22/24, Defendant filed its answer.
On 3/26/24, Plaintiffs served their first set of discovery
requests on Defendant. (Decl. of Phil A. Thomas ¶ 5.) On 5/13/24, Defendant
served its responses thereto. (Id. at ¶ 6.)
On 6/26/24, Plaintiffs filed the instant motions to compel further
responses to the subject discovery requests, and to compel Defendant’s
compliance with its discovery responses. On 10/14/24, Defendant filed its
oppositions to the instant motions. On the same date, Defendant served its
responsive document production. (Decl. of Jordan C. Pratty ¶ 3.) On 10/16/24,
the parties filed a Stipulated Protected Order regarding documents designated
as confidential. On 10/18/24, Plaintiffs filed their reply to Defendant’s
oppositions.
A. Meet and Confer
A motion to compel further
discovery responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration stating, “facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an
informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§
2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2); 2033.290, subd. (b)(1); 2016.040.)
Here, Plaintiffs’
counsel declares that on 5/14/24 and 6/3/24, he sent Defendant’s counsel
meet-and-confer letters raising the issues discussed herein but received no
response. (Thomas Decl. ¶¶ 7–10.) On 10/18/24, counsel
for the parties met and conferred again, but were unable to come to an
agreement. (Pls.’ Reply 1:4–11.)
However, in their reply,
Plaintiffs appear agreeable to further clarifying, limiting, and/or withdrawing
several of their discovery requests. (Id. at 1:22–24,
4:12–23, 5:1, 5:17–26, 6:4–12.) To this extent, the
Court orders counsel for the parties to meet and further confer either
telephonically or in-person within 60 days, to resolve and/or narrow all
outstanding discovery issues. Plaintiff’s counsel is to file a declaration with
the Court which confirms compliance with this order or explains why no
meaningful meet and confer occurred. The motions are therefore continued
pending further meet and confer.
CONCLUSION
The motions are continued. The
parties’ counsel are ordered to meet and further confer either telephonically
or in-person within 60 days, to resolve and/or narrow all outstanding discovery
issues. Plaintiffs’ counsel is to file a declaration with the Court which
confirms compliance with this order or explains why no meaningful meet and
confer occurred.
Motions Continued to 01/23/2025 at 8:30am.