Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24NNCV00360, Date: 2024-10-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24NNCV00360 Hearing Date: October 25, 2024 Dept: A
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:
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 refused 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. Ford
opposes the motions and Plaintiff responds.
ANALYSIS:
I.
LEGAL
STANDARD
Motion to
Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories
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 the
responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete, (2)¿an
unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce
documents in lieu of a substantive response, or (3) unmerited or overly
generalized objections. (C.C.P.
§¿2030.300(a).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the
objections thereto. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.)
Motion to
Compel Further Responses to RFPD
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
A motion to compel further responses to a
request for production must include a meet and confer declaration consistent
with C.C.P. § 2016.040. (C.C.P. § 2031.310 (b)(2).) In turn, Section 2016.040
requires that the moving party have made “a reasonable and good faith attempt
at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (C.C.P. §
2016.040.) C.C.P. § 2030.300(b)(1) contains an identical provision as regards
motions to compel further responses to interrogatories.
“A single letter, followed by a response
which refuses concessions, might in some instances be an adequate attempt at
informal resolution, especially when a legitimate discovery objective is
demonstrated. The time available before the motion filing deadline, and the
extent to which the responding party was complicit in the lapse of available
time, can also be relevant. 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” (Obregon v.
Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 432.)
Upon review of the parties submissions, the
Court finds the meet and confer efforts of Plaintiff were insufficient. The
timeline of Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts are documented below.
·
On May 22, 2024, Plaintiff served her RFPD and Special
Interrogatories on Ford’s counsel. (Armando Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.)
·
On June 25, 2024, Ford served its responses. On July 8,
2024, Ford served its verifications (Armando Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. B.)
·
On July 25, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and
confer letter to Ford’s counsel addressing perceived insufficiencies in Ford’s
responses. (Armando Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. C.) This letter requested response by
August 2, 2024. (Id.)
·
On July 31, 2024, Ford’s counsel responded with a meet and
confer letter of their own. (Armando Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. D.)
·
On August 8, 2024, Plaintiff sent another meet and confer
letter, requesting response by August 16. (Armando Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. E.)
·
On August 16, 2024, Ford responded to the second meet and
confer letter. (Armando Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. F.)
·
On August 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed these motions to compel
further responses.
The
Court’s determination that the meet and confer requirements were not met here
is primarily based on the contents of Plaintiff’s meet and confer letters as
concerns a proposed protective order. Many of Ford’s responses to Plaintiff’s
RFPD and Special Interrogatories agree to produce responsive documents subject
to the entry of a protective order. In this Court’s experience, the entry of a
protective order prior to discovery is a routine matter in actions brought
under Song-Beverly. Autmobile manufacturers and plaintiffs frequently agree
that the information requested in discovery would likely reveal trade secrets
or proprietary information if not subject to a protective order.
Here,
the July 25 meet and confer letter discusses the entry of a protective order in
such a way that makes it clear Plaintiff’s counsel never saw a proposed
protective order from Ford in this case. Plaintiff’s counsel states:
…based on our previous
discussions, I understand that Ford will propose a protective order that
deviates from the LASC model protective order. We have discussed Ford’s proposed
changes to the LASC model on numerous occasions including at hearings on Ford’s
previously filed motions for protective order.
(Armando
Decl. Exh. C, p. 4.)
From
this statement it appears that Plaintiff’s counsel engaged in the meet and
confer process based on prior interactions with Ford, rather than facts
attendant to this case. While the Court understands that Plaintiff’s counsel
has brought several Song-Beverly actions against Ford, these experiences do not
justify approaching the meet and confer process as a foregone conclusion.
Without even seeing the proposed protective order, Plaintiff’s counsel rejects the
assumed deviations from the LASC model order and proceeds to assert that Ford
has provided no information to substantiate the need for a protective order.
(Armando Decl. Exh. C, p. 3.)
From
the outset of the meet and confer letter, Plaintiff’s position on the lack of
necessity of a protective order is clear. Plaintiff’s letter is adamant that if
Ford believes a protective order is necessary, it is incumbent upon Ford to
file a noticed motion seeking a protective order. (See Armando Decl. Exh. C, p.
3 [“To that end, even though a party can seek a confidentiality order, it must
promptly move for one.].) In short, Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter signals
“I have not read your proposed protective order, but I disagree with its terms
and that it is even necessary.”
The
Court acknowledges that C.C.P. §§ 2031.060(a) & 2030.090(a) establish that
a party seeking a protective order in response to discovery demands must do so
via motion. Regardless, the purpose of meet and confer correspondence is to
attempt to reach an amicable conclusion to matters without court intervention.
A letter decrying the merits of a proposed protective order before it is even
seen cannot serve this purpose.
Further,
Plaintiff’s counsel proceeded to file this motion just three days after
receiving Ford’s second response. The Court does not see why Plaintiff’s second
letter would request a response from Ford if Plaintiff’s counsel had already
determined a protective order to be unnecessary. Essentially, the meet and
confer letters read as two parties stating their position to the other with no
attempt at actual compromise.
Given
the foregoing, the Court is inclined to continue these motions to December 20,
2024. The Court orders the parties further meet and confer regarding the
contents of the proposed protective order. Should the parties be unable to
reach an agreement on the protective order, Ford is to file supplemental
briefing only as to the necessity of its protective order no later than
December 6, 2024. Plaintiff is permitted to file responsive briefing only as to
the issue of the protective order no later than December 11, 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
Alex Rosales
Hernandez’s Motion to Compel Further Responses came
on regularly for hearing on October 25, 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 MOTIONS ARE CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 20, 2024.
SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY,
FORD IS TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AS TO THE NECESSITY OF ITS PROTECTIVE ORDER NO
LATER THAN DECEMBER 6, 2024. PLAINTIFF IS PERMITTED TO FILE RESPONSIVE BRIEFING
AS TO THE ISSUE OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER ONLY NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 11, 2024.
PLAINTIFF
TO GIVE NOTICE.
IT IS SO
ORDERED.