Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV02224, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02224    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery is denied, without prejudice.     

            On 1/19/2022, Plaintiff Jocelyn Sanchez (Plaintiff) filed suit against Nissan North America, Inc. (Defendant) alleging violations of statutory obligations.

            Now, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to her discovery.

Discussion

            Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to further responses to her discovery.

            However, in opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally deficient and premature. The Court agrees.

To be ripe procedurally, a motion to compel further responses to requests for production must demonstrate a good faith meet and confer effort at informal resolution of each issue presented. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040 (“A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”)

            Here, the evidence indicates that Plaintiff filed this motion before completing a good faith conferral process. As Plaintiff states, she did not begin the meet and conferral process until June 1, 2022, a mere six calendar days and four court days prior to the motion filing cutoff date of June 7, 2022. At that time, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a thirteen-page correspondence demanding further responses to 86 Requests for Production within two days’ time (by June 3, 2022). This approach is unreasonable and insufficient to meet the requirement of undertaking a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to meet and confer before filing a motion to compel. (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 432.) (“Here plaintiff propounded grossly overbroad interrogatories. Upon receiving the expectable objections, plaintiff simply sent a single brief letter, late in the relevant time period … the trial judge's decision that a greater effort at informal resolution should have been made is amply supported by this record.”).

Plaintiff’s counsel claims he also unsuccessfully attempted to call defense counsel on June 7, 2022 (the day of the motion filing deadline). (Ryu Decl., at ¿ 19.) Defendant’s counsel, however, did not receive a voicemail message from Plaintiff’s counsel on that day, and can find no other indication that such a call attempt was made. (Ornelas Decl., ¿ 7.) Regardless, Plaintiff’s one letter, and one unsuccessful phone call attempt, both made less than a week prior to the deadline to file her motion to compel, are insufficient. (Cf. Obregon, 67 Cal.App.4th at 432 (denying writ challenging trial court’s decision determining plaintiff failed to attempt informal resolution by sending one letter two weeks prior to the deadline to file its motion to compel).)

            In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Court should take into account additional factors like the nature of the dispute here, previous relations with opposing counsel, and prospects for success. However, the obligation to meet-and-confer is mandatory and is not a cumulative process. Each discovery motion must be accompanied by its own adequate meet-and-confer process.

In light of the substantive discovery arguments advanced by the parties, the Court offers the following guidelines (posted on its courtroom rules at LACourt.org) as to what it believes is discoverable:

1.         Purchase and/or lease contract concerning the subject vehicle.
2.         Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.
3.         Communications with dealer, factory representative and/or call center concerning the subject vehicle.
4.         Warranty claims submitted to and/or approved by Defendant concerning the subject vehicle.
5.         Any Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the date the subject vehicle was purchased to the present.
6.         Any internal analysis, investigation, and/or communications regarding the same defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles of the same year, make and model as the subject vehicle which were sold within the State of California.
7.         Any customer complaints regarding the same defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles of the same year, make and model as the subject vehicle which were sold within the State of California.
8.         All policies and/or procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date of purchase to the present.
9.         Technical Service Bulletins and/or Recall Notices regarding the same defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles of the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle which were sold within the State of California.
10.       Any documents supporting plaintiff’s claim for incidental and/or consequential damages.

The Court strongly urges the Court to attempt an informal resolution of this matter, given the Court’s clear indication of what it believes to be discoverable.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery is denied, without prejudice.    

 It is so ordered.

Dated:  August    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.