Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 22-01274739, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

(1) Motion to Compel Production (2) CMC 

Ruling: (1-2) Off Calendar– no hearing will be held.  Continued to 10-3-23, C11, at 2 pm.

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.

This motion was filed on 2-21-2023 and was originally on calendar for 7-18-2023. On that date, the Court ordered counsel to meet and confer in good faith and file a joint separate statement.

On 8-16-2023 counsel filed their joint separate statement. However, even after a review of that document, it is unclear whether the meet and confer advanced any resolution of the disputes here. For instance, Plaintiff alleges “Defendant represented that it was unwilling to provide further responses or document production.”  Defendant, on the other hand, states it has basically produced everything it has (some of which is under a protective order); except as to RFP 32, 33, and 36.   Which of these statements is correct?  The court notes the parties filed a 134-page joint separate statement, bringing the number of pages filed in association with this motion to 573.

On 7-18-23, the Court continued this motion to 8-29, noting: 

“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 2:00 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.”

Despite the warning of potential consequences given in the Court’s 7-18-2023 order, it appears nothing has changed. Plaintiff continues to overreach (not limiting its RPDS in time, scope, geography) and continues to set forth the exact same canned response for each RPD. Meanwhile, Defendant tries to artificially limit what it produces and continues to respond in a confusing manner—as a result, neither the Court nor Plaintiff can determine whether any documents have been withheld based on previously asserted objections.

The Court has now reviewed 134 pages worth of the same arguments, which are not tailored to the specific RPDS. Again, this raised the total number of pages related to this discovery dispute to 573.

Also frustrating is the lack of attention to the actual case at issue. For instance, RPD No. 35 relates to 2018 Jeep Compass Vehicles, when this case involves a 2020 Volkswagen Tiguan. Neither side even addresses this glaring error.  Instead, they simply proceed with business as usual, offering only their identical canned responses.

Given that counsel made very little headway in the Court ordered meet and confer, it appears their effort lacked good faith. They are entrenched in their seemingly cut and pasted positions.

The Court will continue this matter one last time, to allow for actual good faith meet and confer efforts.  The Court orders 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 Defendant is withholding documents based on the attorney client or work product privileges, Defendant is ordered to produce a detailed privilege log.

Should the same situation re-occur, with the parties remaining in their seemingly cut and pasted positions, the Court will set an OSC to discuss why sanctions should not be paid to the Court

pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 177.5 and 2023.020.

Defendant to give notice.