Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 22CHCV01487, Date: 2024-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV01487    Hearing Date: September 11, 2024    Dept: F43

Jason Goldman vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Trial Date: 4-8-25

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jason Goldman

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

RELIEF REQUESTED

Further Responses to Defendant’s Answers to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production

RULING: Parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer.

SUMMARY OF ACTION AND ANALYSIS

On December 27, 2022, Plaintiff Jason Goldman (Plaintiff) filed this lemon law case against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Defendant).

Plaintiff propounded discovery on Defendant on November 1, 2023, including requests for production. Defendant served responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production on December 19, 2023. Plaintiff argues that the responses that Defendant served asserted boilerplate objections that were not Code-compliant. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant failed to produce many of the responsive documents requested. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks further responses to Request Nos. 1-3, 7, 9, 12, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 31, 32, 39, 40, 41, 45, 49, 51, 54, 56, 57, 74, 75, 82, 83, 84, 85, and 86. Plaintiff also claims that his counsel sent a detailed meet and confer letter to Defendant.

There appears to be a dispute between the parties over the efforts of the parties to meet and confer. Plaintiff claims that Defendant failed to respond, but Defendant claims in its opposition that it did not receive the letter that Plaintiff claims was sent on January 23, 2024. Defendant also claims that it expressed its willingness to meet and confer in an email on February 6, 2024, but before the parties could find an appropriate time to meet and confer, Plaintiff filed this motion that same day, February 6. Plaintiff argues in his reply that Defendant’s counsel never provided his availability to meet and confer, but Defendant’s opposition indicated that Plaintiff filed this motion before Defendant could respond with his availability.

The Court has reviewed the documents related to this motion and will not decide the motion on the merits at this time. The Court orders the parties to meet and confer directly, not by email or letter. Additionally, the parties are ordered to file a joint statement of remaining issues by a date to be set by the Court. The joint statement should briefly describe the matters in dispute, followed by Plaintiffs’ arguments, then Defendant’s arguments.

Prior to meeting and conferring, the parties should refer to the Court’s discovery order for lemon law cases for this motion and any future discovery motions that may be filed in this case. There is a section in that order for the production of documents. The Court’s discovery order is posted online, along with this Department’s courtroom information and Final Status Conference Order, all of which the parties are ordered to review.

ORDER

1. The parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer.

2. 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 dates for the status report and continued hearings will be set at the hearing on this motion.

4. Moving party to provide notice.