Judge John C. Gastelum, Case 2022-01274739 2023-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 2022-01274739, Date: 2023-07-18 Tentative Ruling

(1) Motion to Compel Production (2) CMC

Ruling: (1-2) Off Calendar – no hearing will be held. Plaintiffs LADY L. LOZANO PLATA and JEISSON L. CORTES GARZON seek an order to strike Defendant VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC’s (“Defendant” or “VWGOA”) objections and compel further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, numbers 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 19 through 37.

Plaintiff filed a standard Lemon Law Case on 8-10-2022. Defendant filed an Answer on 11-21-2022. Nine (9) days later Plaintiff propounded the RPDS, Set one, on 11-30-2022. Defendant responded 1-4-2023. Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Further Responses to RPDS on 2-21-2023.

The Court notes from 7-1-2022 to 7-11-2023 (i.e., in approximately one year) fifty four (54) cases have been filed against Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. in OCSC. These cases involve a tremendous amount of time and resources for the Court, its staff, and research attorneys.

As to this case, Plaintiff filed a 21 page motion, 147 page separate statement, and 87 page Declaration. Defendant filed a 10 page opposition, 171 page separate statement, and 3 page Declaration. In total, by virtue of this Motion, the Court is required to wade through 439 pages of documents (not to mention the arguments pertaining to the multiple RPDS at issue herein).

And yet, Counsel for defense has not engaged in the requisite meet and confer. Notably, on 1-17-2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a detailed eleven (11) page meet and confer letter to defense counsel, to which defense counsel failed to respond. [Decl. of Kohanoff ¶21, Ex. 6.]

A motion to compel further responses must attach a meet and confer declaration “showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040 [re meet and confer declaration], 2031.310(b)(2).) The meet and confer requirement is designed “to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order . . . . This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016 [quoting Townsend v. Super. Ct. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435] [internal quotations and citations omitted].) There must be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.)

Failing to make a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues informally before a motion to compel is filed constitutes a “misuse of the discovery process.” Monetary sanctions can be imposed against whichever party is guilty of such conduct, even if that party wins the motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(i), 2023.020; see also § 2023.050—additional sanction of $250 for failure to confer in good faith re document production, and lawyer who is sanctioned under § 2023.050 may be ordered to report sanction to State Bar.]

Given the large number of cases currently pending against this particular Defendant, and the failure of defense counsel to engage in meet and confer efforts, the Court rules as follows:

The motion is continued to 8-29-2023, C11, at 2 pm to allow lead counsel to meet and confer, in good faith, and either in person, telephonically, or via video conference. At the meet and confer, the parties should discuss the viability of a protective order for any potentially confidential documents. Additionally, counsel should consider entering into a discovery agreement similar to the LASC Orders relating to Lemon Law cases.

Counsel is ordered to file a joint separate statement nine (9) Court days prior to the continued hearing date detailing the results of the meet and confer, setting forth the RPDS at issue verbatim, responses/objections, and why or why not further responses remain necessary.

To the extent either party fails to meet and confer in good faith as required by this Court’s order, the Court will consider sanctioning the offending party/attorney and order them to report to the State Bar.

Plaintiff to give notice.