Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV03164, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV03164 Hearing Date: August 6, 2024 Dept: F43
Dept.
F-43
Date:
08-06-24
Case
# 23CHCV03164, Francisco Ortiz v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC et al.
Trial
Date: 4-8-24
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
MOVING
PARTY: Plaintiff Francisco Ortiz
RESPONDING
PARTY: Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Further
Responses to Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (6-28-24)
RULING:
Parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer session in light of
this court’s Lemon Law discovery order.
SUMMARY
OF ACTION AND ANALYSIS
On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff Francisco Ortiz (Plaintiff)
filed this Lemon Law action against Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America,
LLC (Defendant).
On
February 8, 2024, Plaintiff propounded discovery on Defendant. On March 14, 2024,
Defendant served responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production. On June 28,
2024, Plaintiff filed his motion to compel further responses to the requests
for production. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s responses were not full and
complete.
Defendant
argues in its opposition that the parties were not able to conduct a sufficient
meet and confer session, contending that Plaintiff’s meet and confer
declaration is based on hearsay. (Abouesh Decl., ¶ 3.) Moreover, the Plaintiff
remained silent for a month after Defendant had rejected Plaintiff’s two prior
unilateral demands without offers to compromise. In response, Plaintiff argues
that it sent a meet and confer request on March 26, 2024, to which Defendant
never responded. Defendant argues that the sole effort to meet and confer on
these responses was a phone call with Plaintiff’s counsel, Christopher Urner. However,
there is a dispute as to whether Defendant’s counsel Ali Abouesh previously
agreed to supplement the responses. (Abouesh Decl. at ¶ 8.)
Setting
aside for now the parties’ competing versions concerning whether they
adequately met and conferred, it does not appear to the Court that the parties
are aware of this court’s Lemon Law discovery order, which is posted online
through the court’s website.
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 familiarize
themselves with the court’s discovery order and then meet and confer directly,
not by email. 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 Plaintiff’s
arguments, then Defendant’s arguments.
ORDER
1. The parties are ordered to review the following
court orders, which are posted online:
This Department’s Information Bulletin, Final Status Conference Order,
and Lemon Law Discovery Order.
2.
The parties are then ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer session by
phone, video conference, or in person.
3.
The hearing on this motion is continued to a date set at today’s hearing. The parties shall submit a joint statement of
the remaining issues as described above by a date that will be set at today’s
hearing. 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.Moving
party to provide notice.