Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24NNCV03942, Date: 2025-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV03942    Hearing Date: May 2, 2025    Dept: A

MOTIONS 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 required 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: 

Teisy Saldana (Plaintiff) brings this action against FCA US, LLC (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sold her a defective 2023 Jeep Grand Cherokee (Subject Vehicle) and thereafter refused to repurchase the vehicle in violation of the Song-Beverly Act.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to her Form Interrogatory No. 15.1. Defendant opposes the motion.

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.)

II.                 MERITS

Timeline

On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff propounded her Form Interrogatories via email upon Defendant’s counsel. (Pardo decl. ¶ 3.) On November 6, 2024, Defendant served their unverified responses to the Form Interrogatories. (Pardo Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 2.) On November 12, 2024, the responses were subsequently verified. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s counsel states that Defendant’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 15, as well as other discovery requests, were evasive and insufficient. (Pardo Decl. ¶ 9.) Accordingly, on November 14, 2024, Plaintiff’ counsel sent a letter via email to Defendant’s counsel seeking to meet and confer regarding the discovery responses. (Pardo Decl. ¶ 10, Exh. 5.) Plaintiff’ counsel did not receive a response and so followed up with another email a week later.   (Pardo Decl. ¶¶ 11-13, Exh. 6.) On November 25, 2024, Defendant’s counsel replied with an emailed response letter. (Pardo Decl. ¶¶ 15-17.)

On December 19, 2024, the parties met and conferred telephonically regarding the outstanding discovery. (Pardo Decl., Exh. 6 at p. 41.) Afterward Plaintiff’ counsel emailed to confirm that Plaintiff’ deadline to file the instant motion was extended to January 23, 2025. (Id.) Plaintiff’ counsel also confirmed that Defendant’s counsel would check with their client after the new year to see what responses would be supplemented. (Id.)

On January 13, 2025, Defendant’ counsel emailed to inform that Defendant would be supplementing the responses they spoke about during their call. (Pardo Decl., Exh. 6 at p. 44.) Defendant’s counsel requested an additional 30 days to provide the responses. (Id.) The parties also appeared to be discussing the logistics of mediation at this time, including possible dates. Plaintiff’s counsel responded, agreeing to push the motion deadlines to February 20, 2025 so that they would be after any potential mediation. (Id.) On January 15, 2025, Defendant’s counsel emailed to inform that the February 20^th extension was okay and that they would provide supplemental responses by February 5th. (Id. at p. 45.)

Throughout the rest of January, Plaintiff’s counsel sent various emails following up on potential mediation dates. (Pardo Decl. Exh. 6, pgs. 46-49.) On January 28, 2025, Defendant’s counsel replied and apologized for the delay.  (Id. at p. 49.) Defendant’s counsel informed she had authority to repurchase the vehicle and suggested Plaintiff’ counsel send her the financial information so she could start the process. (Id.)

Throughout February, Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel exchanged various emails, all relating to the documentation needed to facilitate a repurchase. (Pardo Decl., Exh. 6 p.50 -54.) There was no discussion of discovery demands in any of these emails. (Id.) On February 18, 2025, Defendant’s counsel emailed to inform that she had all the documents she needed and was awaiting final approval from her client for a repurchase agreement. (Id. at p. 54.)

On February 20, 2025, the instant motion was filed. No other communication between the parties is included in the moving papers. It appears from Defendant’s opposition that, on April 21, 2025, they served a supplemental response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1. (Gregg Decl., Exh. B.)

Discussion

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied for a failure to properly meet and confer prior to bringing the motion. A motion to compel further responses to an interrogatory must include a meet and confer declaration consistent with C.C.P. § 2016.040. (C.C.P. § 2030.300(b)(1).) 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.)

“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. However, 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.) The Court may deny a motion to compel discovery for lack of a reasonable and good faith attempt to meet and confer. (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1436-1439; Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434-435.)

Here, Plaintiff’ counsel propounded discovery and properly met and conferred regarding perceived insufficiencies. Defendant’s counsel responded, stating they would supplement their responses. In the interim the parties began earnest discussion for settlement, and indeed it appears they made significant headway in doing so. The Court’s finding that Plaintiff should have continued meet and confer efforts derives from Plaintiff’s failure to address discovery in any of their communications after the initial extension was discussed.

Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel several times in between the promised February 5, 2025 production date and the February 20, 2025 motion filing. Not one of these communications mentions discovery, rather they focus on the informal resolution of the case. Essentially Plaintiff appears to have completely dropped the issue of discovery after having received the news that the case would likely settle. This makes sense, as Plaintiff’ need for a response to Form Interrogatory 15.1 appears moot once Defendant has agreed to repurchase the vehicle.

The Court understands that the parties may not have reached a formal settlement agreement, but such does not entitle Plaintiff to move forward with discovery motions without further meet and confer effort. Defendant’s counsel appeared to be operating under the quite reasonable assumption that further discovery would be moot in light of their settling the case. If Plaintiff believed the informal resolution was in jeopardy or the discovery response was necessary to settlement, it was incumbent upon her counsel to signal that to Defendant’s counsel.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response is DENIED.

--- 

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 

Teisy Saldana’s Motion to Compel Further Response came on regularly for hearing on May 2, 2025, 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 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1 IS DENIED.  

PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.