Judge Gary I. Micon, Case Number: 22CHCV01269, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 22CHCV01269, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV01269 Hearing Date: January 24, 2024 Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 1-24-24

Case #22CHCV01269

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Melissa Chavez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Further Responses to Defendant’s Answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (RFP Nos. 22-23, 26-29, 32, 45-46)

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On December 1, 2022, Plaintiff Melissa Chavez (Plaintiff) filed this lemon law case against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Defendant). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges causes of action against Defendant for violations of the Song-Beverly Act.

As part of Plaintiff’s case against Defendant, Plaintiff has propounded discovery on Defendant. Defendant answered Plaintiff’s discovery requests. On May 1, 2023, Defendant served responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production. On October 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to the requests for production. Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s responses on the basis that Defendant failed to properly object, and Plaintiff objects because Defendant’s objections were too general and without merit. Plaintiff also indicates that the parties only met and conferred in writing.

Defendant claims in its opposition that responsive documents do not exist to some of the requests. Defendant also argues that the Song-Beverly Act does not include or require other information which Plaintiff seeks. Defendant further claims that it has produced all responsive documents to Plaintiff’s claim.

In her reply, Plaintiff reiterates her argument that Defendant’s responses are insufficient and that the information she seeks is relevant and discoverable.

RULING: Parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer, followed by an Informal Discovery Conference before the Court

The only meet and confer demonstrated by the parties were meet and confer letters sent by Plaintiff. Defendant claims in its opposition that Plaintiff’s first meet and confer letter was boilerplate and did not provide any specific information regarding how each response was deficient. Plaintiff then sent a second, similar letter before Defendant had a chance to respond to the first.

The Court has reviewed the documents related to these motions and will not decide the motions on the merits at this time. The Court orders an Informal Discovery Conference. At least 10 days prior to the IDC, the parties must conduct a meaningful meet and confer to resolve as much as they can. Additionally, the parties are ordered to file a joint statement of remaining issues prior to the IDC. The joint statement should briefly describe the matters in dispute, followed by Plaintiff’s arguments, then Defendant’s arguments.

ORDER

1. The parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer at least 10 court days prior to the Informal Discovery Conference.

2. At least 3 court days prior to the Informal Discovery Conference, the parties shall submit a joint statement of the remaining issues as described above. The format should be as follows: the parties should recite the specific discovery request at issue, followed by the moving party’s statement of why it should be compelled, followed by the opposing party’s statement of why it should not be compelled. To the extent that an argument is repeated for a subsequent request, the party shall simply refer to the section where the argument was previously made.

3. The date for the IDC will be set at the hearing on this motion.

4. Moving party to provide notice.