Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV04252, Date: 2025-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV04252    Hearing Date: April 18, 2025    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 03-10-25

Case # 24CHCV04252, Heinig v. Kia America, Inc.

Trial Date: None set.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Franz L. Heinig

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Kia America, Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order compelling further responses to plaintiff’s requests for production numbers 7, 8, 30, and 31.

RULING: The parties are ordered to review the court’s Song-Beverly Discovery Order and to file a joint statement.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On February 12, 2022, plaintiff Franz Heinig (Plaintiff) purchased a 2022 Kia EV6.  There were defects in the vehicle, the defects make the vehicle unsafe, and defendant Kia America, Inc. (Defendant) failed to repair or replace the vehicle.  Plaintiff filed this lemon law case against Defendant alleging that Defendant breached an express and implied warranties.

On December 30, 2024, Plaintiff propounded his first set of requests for production (RFP) on Defendant.  (Declaration of Siyun Yang, Esq., ¶ 19.)  Defendant served deficient responses containing boilerplate objections and no documents on January 31, 2025.  (Yang Dec., ¶ 22, Exh. 7.)  Counsel exchanged several emails, and Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer telephonically.  (Yang Dec., ¶¶ 22, 26-32.)  Defendant served its initial document production on February 3, 2025.  (Declaration of Laura D. Vawter, ¶ 6, Exh. 3.)  Defendant produced further documents on March 7, 2025.  (Vawter Dec., ¶ 10, Exh. 4.)  Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer telephonically, but defense counsel never responded.  (Yang Dec., ¶ 33.)

On March 10, 2025, Plaintiff moved to compel further responses and responsive documents to RFP numbers 7, 8, 30, and 31.  Defendant opposed, and Plaintiff filed a reply.

MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve issues outside court.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)  In Department F43, meet and confer means in person or via phone.  A letter or email does not suffice.  (Department F43 Courtroom Information, p. 2.)

Counsel sent several meet and confer emails back and forth between February 20, 2025 and March 10, 2025.  (Yang Dec., ¶¶ 22, 26-33; Vawter Dec., ¶¶ 7-12.)  Defense counsel responded on February 26, 2025, and failed to explain why it did not provide the requested documents and claimed that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer.  (Yang Dec., ¶ 29.)  On March 10, 2025 at 4:37 pm and 4:52 pm, Plaintiff’s counsel left voicemails with defense counsel to meet and confer, but defense counsel opted to call Plaintiff’s counsel back on March 11th.  (Yang Dec., ¶ 32; Vawter Dec., ¶ 11.)  On March 11, 2025, the parties agreed to telephonically meet and confer on March 12, 2025 and that Plaintiff’s counsel would initiate the call.  (Vawter Dec., ¶ 14, Exh. 6.)  The parties never met and conferred telephonically.  (Vawter Dec., ¶¶ 15-16.)

ANALYSIS

Where responses to requests for production of documents have been served but the demanding party believes that they are deficient because the statement of compliance is incomplete, the representation of an inability to comply is inadequate, evasive, or incomplete, or, because an objection is without merit, that party may move for an order compelling a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)  The demanding party must serve the motion within 45 days after service of verified responses in question, or any verified supplemental responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)

The court has reviewed the moving papers and finds that the parties failed to meet and confer according to Department F43’s Song-Beverly Litigation Discovery Order.  The court orders the parties to review the court’s Song-Beverly Litigation Discovery Order, particularly Section 2, Categories (g)-(h), and to meet and confer with the Order in mind.  The parties must meet and confer directly, not by email, to resolve as much as they can.  Further, 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.

CONCLUSION

1.  The parties are ordered to review the court’s Song-Beverly Litigation Discovery Order and to conduct a meaningful meet and confer with the Order in mind. The parties must meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference.

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 requests 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 court will set a deadline for the status report at the motion hearing.

Plaintiff Franz L. Heinig to give notice.