Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: "Reitz v. General Motors, LLC", Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING: 

Plaintiff Dennis Reitz’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFAs

Plaintiff Dennis Reitz moves to compel further responses to RFAs (Set One). For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

A motion to compel further responses must attach a meet and confer declaration “showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040 [re meet and confer declaration], 2030.310(b).) 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. Super. Ct. (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.)

Here, the court exercises its discretion to rule on the motion despite its finding that the parties could have engaged in a more meaningful meet and confer process prior to filing this motion.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(a), a party may move for an order compelling a further response to requests for admission if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: an answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete; and/or an objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 requires that responses to RFAs be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits,” and that each response admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue, or specify so much of the matter involved as to the truth of which the RP lacks sufficient information or knowledge. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220(a)-(b).) Should the responding party give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit all or part of the RFA, the party “shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220(c).)

The court finds Defendant GM’s response to RFA No. 14 to be evasive. GM denies a portion of the RFA as written (i.e., that Plaintiff made a repurchase request) and then denies a reworded version of the remainder of the RFA. In addition, Defendant GM does not to justify its asserted objections.

Verification

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5 requires that each verification executed within California must state the date and place of execution, or if executed at any place whether within California or not, state the date of execution and that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the State of California. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.)

Here, Defendant GM’s verification sufficiently complies with these requirements, stating the declarant “is authorized on behalf of General Motors LLC, as its agent, to verify General Motors LLC’s responses, and verifies that General Motors LLC’s responses are true and correct based on [her] review.” (Goldsmith Decl., Ex. 3.) The verification also includes a date of execution (April 13, 2023) and that it is declared under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California. (Ibid.)

Defendant GM shall provide code-compliant, verified further responses without objection to RFA No. 14 within 30-days of receiving notice of ruling.

Plaintiff to give notice.