Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 18CHLC28988, Date: 2024-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18CHLC28988    Hearing Date: December 2, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 12-03-24

Case # 23CHCV01449, Alvarado v. American Honda Motor Co.

Trial Date: None set.

Motion to Compel Vehicle Inspection

MOVING PARTY: Defendant American Honda Motor Co.

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order compelling Plaintiff to produce his 2022 Honda Insight for inspection and sanctions.

RULING: Because moving party has failed to meet and confer with plaintiff, the Court will continue the hearing to a future date and order the parties to meet and confer.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Jacob Alvarado filed this Song-Beverly action against American Honda Motor Co. alleging defects with American Honda’s computerized driver-assistance safety system called “Honda Sensing”.  The First Amended Complaint (FAC), filed May 16, 2023, alleges two causes of action for (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act - breach of express warranty; and (2) fraudulent inducement - concealment.

The FAC alleges that on May 13, 2022, Alvarado purchased a new 2022 Honda Insight, VIN: 19XZE4F50NE013543.  Alvarado received a New Vehicle Limited Warranty in connection with the purchase of the vehicle from defendant American Honda.  The vehicle was equipped with a defective computerized driver-assistance safety system called “Honda Sensing”.  American Honda failed to disclose that normal, everyday driving conditions can cause problems with Honda Sensing and that American Honda knew or should have known about the Honda Sensing defects, yet Honda sold the vehicles anyways.  American Honda knew of the Honda Sensing defect since at least 2016, actively concealed the defect, and knowingly sold a dangerously defective vehicle to Alvarado.  

On August 28, 2024, Alvarado filed a Second Amended Complaint.

On August 9, 2024, American Honda filed this motion to compel inspection of Alvarado’s Honda Insight. No opposition has been filed.

Meet and Confer

A demanding party must attach a meet and confer declaration to its motion to compel discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (b)(2), 2016.040.)  The declaration must “state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

“The level of effort at informal resolution which satisfies the ‘reasonable and good faith attempt’ standard depends upon the circumstances.  In a larger, more complex discovery context, a greater effort at informal resolution may be warranted.  In a simpler, or more narrowly focused case, a more modest effort may suffice.  The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant.”  (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

Although “discovery statutes have generally been construed to uphold the right to discovery wherever reasonable and possible,” the Court must now balance the principle of liberal construction in favor of discovery with the meet and confer requirement.  (Id. at p. 434.)  In such circumstances, the court should not deny discovery but “consider whether it would be more appropriate to specify additional efforts which will be required before the court will turn to the merits of the discovery dispute.” (Id. at pp. 434-435, fn. 10.)

Even though this motion is unopposed, American Honda not only fails to attach the required declaration, its motion and supporting declaration are silent as to whether any efforts were made to meet and confer. 

CONCLUSION

The Court will set a status conference on the continued hearing date and order a joint status report re: the meet and confer with the filing date to be set at the hearing.

Moving party to give notice.