Judge Dennis J. Keough, Case 2020-01174532 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Dennis J. Keough, Case: 2020-01174532, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

2) Motion to Compel Production

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

The Motion of plaintiff Fernando Vasquez Alcaraz to compel defendant Hyundai Motor America to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, is CONTINUED to ________.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides in pertinent part: “(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. [¶] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. [¶] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (b)(1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040 . . . (c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.”

Code of Civil Procedure 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.”

“ ‘The Discovery Act requires that, prior to the initiation of a motion to compel, the moving party declare that he or she has made a serious attempt to obtain “an informal resolution of each issue.” [Citation.] This rule is designed “to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order. . . .” [Citation.] This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] [¶] ‘A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate . . . involves the exercise of discretion. The level of effort at informal resolution which satisfies the “reasonable and good faith attempt” standard depends upon the circumstances. In a larger, more complex discovery context, a greater effort at informal resolution may be warranted. In a simpler, or more narrowly focused case, a more modest effort may suffice. The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant. Judges have broad powers and responsibility to determine what measure and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances.’ [Citation.] ‘A trial judge's perceptions on such matters, inherently factual in nature at least in part, must not be lightly disturbed.’ [Citation.]” (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016 (Stewart).

As to the sufficiency of the meet and confer efforts, Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431 (Obregon), states, “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate also involves the exercise of discretion. The level of effort at informal resolution which satisfies the ‘reasonable and good faith attempt’ standard depends upon the circumstances. In a larger, more complex discovery context, a greater effort at informal resolution may be warranted. In a simpler, or more narrowly focused case, a more modest effort may suffice. The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant. Judges have broad powers and responsibilities to determine what measures and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances. [Citations.]”

Plaintiff contends that “Defendant has refused to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding its refusal to provide Plaintiff a substantive response and has, itself, declared the parties to be at an impasse.” (Separate Statement, p. 4, lns. 25-26.) In support of its contention, Plaintiff has submitted a letter from Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendant’s counsel which addresses Defendant’s refusal to meet and confer in good faith. The letter states: “Although Defendant Hyundai Motor America has refused to further meet and confer, and declared the Parties at an impasse, Plaintiff is still open to further discussion and invites Defendant to respond.” (Oliva Decl., ¶ 36, Ex. 11.) Plaintiff’s Reply further states that: “Many of the issues Defendant lists in Section 2(C) of its Opposition could have been addressed during the meet and confer process if Defendant had actually engaged Plaintiff in their efforts to obtain this information. However, Defendant stood stoically behind its objections. If Defendant would have engaged Plaintiff, perhaps we could have narrowed down the request to specific groups of individuals or a maximum number of individuals. Perhaps, if Defendant had wanted to know what the purpose of the requested information was and how it would assist Plaintiff, it would have asked and the parties could have come to an understanding. But it did not.” (Reply, p. 6, lns. 15-22.)

Therefore, the court finds that further meeting and conferring regarding the discovery request at issue will facilitate the resolution of the discovery dispute.

If the parties are unable to resolve these matters, the parties are ordered to file a Joint Statement regarding any remaining discovery dispute, not to exceed 5-pages, no later than 9 court days before the continued hearing.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Motion to Compel Production

The Motion of plaintiff Fernando Vasquez Alcaraz to compel Defendant Hyundai Motor America’s to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two is CONTINUED to __________.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides: “(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. [¶] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. [¶] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. [¶] (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following: [¶] (1) the motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. [¶] (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. . . [¶] (c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”

Plaintiff contends that “Defendant has refused to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding its refusal to provide Plaintiff a substantive response or the corresponding documents and has, itself, declared the parties to be at an impasse.” (Separate Statement, p. 4, lns. 19-21.) In support of its contention, Plaintiff has submitted a letter from Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendant’s counsel which addresses Defendant’s refusal to the meet and confer in good faith. The letter states: “Although Defendant Hyundai Motor America has refused to further meet and confer, and declared the Parties at an impasse, Plaintiff is still open to further discussion and invites Defendant to respond.” (Oliva Decl., ¶ 36, Ex. 11.) Defendant opposition fails to address Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant refused to meet and confer in good faith with Plaintiff regarding the issues raised by the Motion. In its Reply, Plaintiff further states, “Defendant has failed to engage with Plaintiffs in the meet and confer process-despite Plaintiffs asking Defendant direct questions on how to further narrow their Requests-and ultimately cut off the meet and confer process completely.” (Reply, p. 1, lns. 23-25.)

Therefore, the court finds that further meeting and conferring regarding the discovery request at issue will facilitate the resolution of the discovery dispute.

Plaintiff to give notice.