Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV01668, Date: 2023-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01668    Hearing Date: December 19, 2023    Dept: 14

Garcia v. General Motors

Case Background

Lemon law involving Plaintiff’s 2023 Chevrolet Traverse.

On January 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Complaint for (1) Violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(d), (2) Violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(b), (3) Violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(a)(3), (4) Breach of Express Warranty, and (5) Breach of Implied Warranty against Defendants General Motors, LLC (“GM”) and DOES 1-10.

On March 6, 2023, Defendant GM filed its Answer.

Jury trial is currently set for May 20, 2024.

Instant Motion

Plaintiff now moves this court, per Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310, for an order compelling Defendant GM to make further responses to his Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One (“RFP”).

Decision

The motion is DENIED, without prejudice to a new motion filed after a proper attempt to meet and confer and (if necessary) an Informal Discovery Conference.

Counsel are ORDERED to exclude the cost of this motion from any fee bill they may in future present to this court.

Discussion

            Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310(b)(3) requires the moving party to supply a declaration showing an effort to meet and confer which satisfies the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 2016.040. Section 2016.040 provides:

“A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”

Plaintiffs have failed to meet that requirement.

            This discovery was served on March 10, 2023. Unverified responses were served on April 10, 2023. Verifications were served, rendering the responses complete, on May 16, 2023. The parties began to trade letters about the discovery before the responses had even been served. By the end of this exchange, counsel had traded 11 letters and emails, creating 58 pages worth of exhibits for this motion. (Plaintiff’s Exhibits 8-18).

            Review of the letters reveals that this is precisely what counsel were doing: creating exhibits for a motion. These were aggressive, form communications that both counsel now use to argue both sides of this motion. They were not reasonable attempts to resolve the issues raised by this discovery.

            After this motion was filed, the court (through its staff) directed counsel to meet and confer in a real-time format. The court also instructed counsel to schedule an Informal Discovery Conference and file a joint statement if that did not work. Counsel were warned that failure to file the joint statement would result in removal of the Informal Discovery Conference from the court’s calendar.

            It is not clear from the papers whether counsel ever met and conferred in a real-time format as instructed. Counsel did schedule the Informal Discovery Conference but did not file the required joint statement. Therefore, the court took the Conference off-calendar.

Conclusion

            Because counsel failed to meet and confer properly before filing this motion, and failed to follow the court’s instructions after filing this motion, the motion is DENIED, without prejudice. Because counsel’s behavior has not been a reasonable expenditure of their time, they are ORDERED to exclude the cost of this motion from any fee bill they may in future present to this court.