Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24BBCV00360, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24BBCV00360    Hearing Date: January 17, 2025    Dept: A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 24NNCV00360

 

MP:  

Alex Rosales Hernandez (Plaintiff)

RP:  

Ford Motor Company (Defendant)

 

NOTICE:

 

The Court is requesting oral argument on this matter to address whether the parties complied with the Court’s January 2, 2025 orders concerning further meeting and confer relative to the protective order. 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Alex Rosales Hernandez (Plaintiff) brings this action against Ford Motor Company (Ford). Plaintiff alleges that Ford sold him a defective 2022 Ford F-150 (Subject Vehicle) and thereafter declined to repurchase the vehicle in violation of the Song-Beverly Act.

 

Before the Court are two motions to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for the Production of Documents (RFPD) and Special Interrogatories.

 

On October 25, 2024, these motions came on for hearing. The Court found that Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate good faith meet and confer efforts prior to the brining of this motion. The Court ordered the parties to further meet and confer and continued the motions to December 20, 2024. To the extent that it was necessary, Ford was ordered to file supplemental briefing as to the protective order no later than December 6, 2024. Any responsive briefing from Plaintiff was due no later than December 11, 2024.

 

Ford did not file supplemental briefing by the ordered deadline. On December 11, 2024, despite the fact that Ford had filed no further briefings Plaintiff filed a short responsive brief. On December 19, 2024, Ford filed a separately noticed Motion for Protective Order to be heard March 7, 2025.

 

On December 20, 2024, these motions were continued once more to January 2, 2025 as a result of scheduling conflict in the Court’s calendar. On January 2, 2025, the Court again ordered Ford to provide Plaintiff a copy of the proposed protective order no later than three court days from the January 2nd order.  The Court is unaware that this was completed.  The Court does not know whether Plaintiff’s counsel has reviewed the proposed changes to the protective order which were incorporated in Ford’s motion for protective order filed December 19, 2024.

 

Appearances of counsel will be required to provide further information.