Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Reitz v. General Motors LLC, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling
TENTATIVE RULING:
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff Dennis Reitz’s motion to compel Defendant GM’s further responses to Special Interrogatories is CONTINUED to September 27, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. in this Department.
As detailed below, the parties are ORDERED to further meet and confer with regards to the discovery at issue in this motion and to file a Joint Statement no later than 9 court days before the continued hearing date. If a Joint Statement is not filed by that date, the motion may be taken off-calendar.
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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) The meet and confer requirement is designed “to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order….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.” (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016 (quoting Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435) (internal quotations and citations omitted).) There must be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.)
“[T]he law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Id.) The particular level of effort required in each case depends on the circumstances including the amount of discovery propounded, the time available to confer before the motion filing deadline, and the extent to which a party was complicit in the lapse of available time. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 424, 432.) “A reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with deponent's counsel at a deposition. Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 1431, 1439.) “An evaluation of whether, from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the discovering party, additional effort appeared likely to bear fruit, should also be considered. Although some effort is required in all instances, the level of effort that is reasonable is different in different circumstances, and may vary with the prospects for success. These are considerations entrusted to the trial court's discretion and judgment, with due regard for all relevant circumstances.” (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 432–33.)
Further, “Civil discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention. [I]t is a central precept of the Civil Discovery Act ... that discovery be essentially self-executing[.] [Citations].” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402.)
Here, the parties have failed to meaningfully meet and confer. Plaintiff sent one meet and confer email to Defendant. Defendant contends that it responded by stating it would agree to provide Plaintiff with additional responses, offered to produce documents subject to a protective order, and stood on some of its objections. [Shugart Decl., ¶ 6 (Defendant contends it attached its meet and confer letter as Exhibit A, but Exhibit A is a deposition transcript and not a meet and confer letter.)]. Rather than attempt to, at the very least, narrow the issues with Defendant, Plaintiff filed this motion. There is no evidence that Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer further. Under the circumstances of this case, there has not been a serious effort at negotiation or informal resolution, and additional meet and confer efforts are required.
Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer for the purpose of attempting a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution of the dispute. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the meet and confer efforts shall be made by lead counsel for both parties either in person, by telephone or videoconference, and not by mail or email, except as confirmation of conversations.
As previously stated by the court in its 07/12/23 Minute Order, a party is entitled to seek all discovery that is relevant to the subject matter of the action. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010. The test for determining if something is discoverable is whether the requested matter “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. Information is “relevant to the subject matter of the litigation” if it possibly assists the party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or aiding in settlement of the case. (Gonzalez v. Super. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546). “A trial court must be mindful of the Legislature’s preference for discovery over trial by surprise, must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery, may not use its discretion to extend the limits on discovery beyond those authorized by the Legislature, and should prefer partial to outright denials of discovery.” (Williams v. Superior Ct. (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, 540). Accordingly, Courts liberally apply the "relevant" and "reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence" standards and generally rule in favor of permitting discovery. (Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 785, 790).
When a plaintiff seeks a civil penalty for violation of the Song-Beverly Act, the plaintiff must prove that a manufacturer’s violation was willful. In considering whether or not a manufacturer willfully violates the act, a jury may consider, among other things, whether : (1) the manufacturer knew the vehicle had not been repaired within a reasonable period or after a reasonable number of attempts, and (2) whether the manufacturer had a written policy on the requirement to [repurchase] or replace. (Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 3 Cal. App. 4th 112, 136). For example, the court of appeal affirmed a trial court judgment imposing a civil penalty on a manufacturer based on the jury’s findings that the manufacturer’s violation was willful. (Oregel v. Am. Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal. App. 4th 1094, 1105). The court held, inter alia, that the jury’s verdict was supported by the manufacturer’s general internal policies and practices that hid defects from consumers:
“Additionally, the jury could conclude that Isuzu's policy, which requires a part be replaced or adjusted before Isuzu deems it a repair attempt but excludes from repair attempts any visit during which a mechanic searches for but is unable to locate the source of the problem (citing fn. 11 in Oregel, at 1103), is unreasonable and not a good faith effort to honor its statutory obligations to repurchase defective cars. (Citation.)) Finally, there was evidence that Isuzu adopted internal policies that erected hidden obstacles to the ability of an unwary consumer to obtain redress under the Act [i.e., requiring written complaints when the consumer manual provides a toll-free telephone number]. This latter evidence would permit a jury to infer that Isuzu impedes and resists efforts by a consumer to force Isuzu to repurchase a defective car, regardless of the presence of an unrepairable defect, and that Isuzu's decision to reject Oregel's demand was made pursuant to Isuzu's policies rather than to its good faith and reasonable belief the car did not have an unrepairable defect covered by the warranty or that a reasonable number of attempts to effect a repair had not yet occurred.” Id.
A manufacturer’s knowledge of a defect concerning other cars not subject to litigation, therefore, may be relevant to a plaintiff’s proving the existence of a manufacturer’s underlying policies relevant to the issue of willfulness.
The parties are to meet and confer with these general discovery principles in mind.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties file a Joint Statement only on issues on which they cannot reach resolution through meeting and conferring. The parties are to say why they were unable to resolve their issues. Each party is to set forth the factual and legal reasons for their position. No additional briefing is authorized or will be considered.
The Joint Statement must be filed and served no later than 9 court days before the continued hearing date. If a Joint Statement is not filed by that date, the Motion may be taken off-calendar.
Failure to comply with this order by either party, or their counsel, may result in further continuance of the motions, placing them off-calendar, and/or monetary sanctions against the parties or counsel.
Moving party to give notice.