Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24BBCV00094, Date: 2024-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24BBCV00094    Hearing Date: August 16, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Georgia Durante (Plaintiff) brings this action against Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai) for claims arising out of the purchase of a 2016 Hyundai Tuscon (the Subject Vehicle). The Complaint alleges several causes of action for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Before the Court is a motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for the Production of Documents (RFPD). Hyundai opposes the motion and Plaintiff replies.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

A motion to compel further responses to RFPD may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive, or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (C.C.P. § 2031.310(c).) 

A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See C.C.P. § 2031.310(b)(1).) In Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good cause” as a showing that there “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.”  If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) 

II.                 MERITS

Timeline

On April 2, 2024 Plaintiff served their RFPD on Hyundai. (Stoliker Decl ¶ 20.) On May 6, 2024, Hyundai served objection only responses to each of the 144 RFPD. (Stoliker Decl. ¶ 23, Exh. 5.)

On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff sent Hyundai’s counsel a meet and confer letter detailing the perceived insufficiencies of Hyundai’s response. (Stoliker Decl. Exh. 9.) On June 12, 2024, Hyundai responded that they intended to file a motion to compel arbitration which would moot the discovery demands. (Mayo Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff replied that she would move to compel further responses unless Hyundai agreed to supplemental responses. (Stoliker Decl., Exh. 13.) Plaintiff states that Hyundai has produced no responsive documents as of Plaintiff’s filing this motion. (Stoliker Decl. ¶ 25.)

Discussion

Hyundai argues that the present motion is premature by virtue of their pending motion to compel arbitration. The Court agrees that the filing of a motion to stay the matter pending a motion to compel arbitration necessarily stays the discovery process.

Hyundai cites to clear authority providing that a trial court is required to stay an action while an application to arbitrate the subject matter of the action is pending. (See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 188, 193.) This authority derives directly from the language of C.C.P. § 1281.4 which reads as follows:

If a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.

If an application has been made to a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, for an order to arbitrate a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State and such application is undetermined, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until the application for an order to arbitrate is determined and, if arbitration of such controversy is ordered, until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.

If the issue which is the controversy subject to arbitration is severable, the stay may be with respect to that issue only.

The Court acknowledges that at the time of Plaintiff’s filing this motion, no motion to compel arbitration was filed. Regardless, the fact remains that Hyundai’s subsequently filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay the instant matter. Twentieth Century Fox and C.C.P. § 1281.4 make clear that this filing functions to stay all discovery matters in this case pending the resolution of the motion to compel. Further, Hyundai clearly signaled their intent to file a motion to compel arbitration in their meet and confer correspondence and their discovery responses. Moreover, Hyundai has indicated that, should their motion to compel arbitration be denied, they are willing to produce amended responses within three weeks. (Mayo Decl. ¶ 11.)  

Given the stay on discovery matters, the Court is inclined to continue this motion until after the determination of Hyundai’s motion to compel. The motion to compel is currently set for hearing on September 6, 2024. As such, the Court continues the motion to compel further responses to October 4, 2024.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Georgia Durante’s Motion to Compel Further Responses came on regularly for hearing on August 16, 2024 with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:  

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES IS CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 4, 2024 AT 9:00 A.M.

ALL OTHER DATES REMAIN.

DEFENDANT HYUNDAI TO GIVE NOTICE.