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. 117,1932,3334, 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.

 

TENTATIVE RULING: 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.

//

//

//

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.