Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV00237, Date: 2024-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV00237    Hearing Date: October 14, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 10-14-24

Case # 24CHCV00237, James Conrad Gambina vs. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTIN

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff James Conrad Gambina

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant’s further responses to certain requests for production.

RULING: The parties are ordered to meet and confer based on the Court’s Lemon Law discovery order.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

This action arises from Plaintiff James Conrad Gambina’s (Plaintiff) purchase of an allegedly defective 2022 Honda Accord. On January 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (Defendant) for violations of the Song-Beverly Act.

Plaintiff propounded Requests for Production on Defendant on March 13, 2024. On May 30, 2024, Defendant served its responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s responses contained meritless objections, and he filed this motion compel, seeking further responses to RFP Nos. 1-3, 7, 9, 15, 16, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 37, 38, 41, 42, 45, 46, 51, 52, 55, 56, 69, 70, 71,72, 80, 81, 86, 88, 90, 109, 113, 114, 119, 120, 125, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, and 145.

After Plaintiff filed this motion on July 24, 2024, Defendant, having become aware of this Court’s Lemon Law discovery order, attempted to communicate with Plaintiff regarding the proper responsive documents in Lemon Law cases. There was no mention in Plaintiff’s motion of any attempt to comply with the Court’s Lemon Law discovery order. After Plaintiff’s counsel told Defendant that she would check with her office regarding the discovery order, Defendant’s three attempts to follow up with Plaintiff in September were unsuccessful. Defendant claims that it served additional documents on October 1, 2024, that are in compliance with this Court’s Lemon Law discovery order. As of October 8, no reply has been filed by Plaintiff.

It does not appear that the parties were able to successfully meet and confer regarding the Court’s Lemon Law discovery order.

Accordingly, 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 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 meet and confer based on the Court’s Lemon Law discovery order. 

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.