Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV09190, Date: 2023-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09190    Hearing Date: October 17, 2023    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

1.      Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel.

Plaintiffs Jose Barajas and Emma Barajas move for an order to strike Defendant General Motors LLC’s objections and compel further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Request Nos. 1 through 17.

The Court issues no tentative on the motion to compel.  The Court requests argument on the following issues:

A.    Was Plaintiffs’ motion to compel untimely because the hearing date was set after the initial trial date?  Generally, such motions must be heard on or before the 15th day before the initial trial date. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2024.020.) 

B.    Was Plaintiff’s motion to compel untimely because it was filed on August 17, 2023, which appears to be more than 45 days after the service of the response of June 14, 2023?  (Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.310(c).)  Were the responses verified, and was this deadline triggered?

2.      Plaintiffs’ Motions In Limine

The Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19.  They are too general to allow the Court to issue any orders which will provide meaningful guidance in the case.

The Court will grant the following of Plaintiffs’ motions in limine, which appear non-controversial:

Plaintiffs’ MIL 3:  There shall be no reference at trial to the parties’ prior settlement discussions.

Plaintiffs’ MIL 6:   There shall be no evidence or testimony at trial relating to Plaintiff’s financial condition.

Plaintiffs’ MIL12:  There shall be no reference at trial to the parties’ attorney’s fees in this action.

Plaintiffs’ MIL 13   There shall be no argument at trial regarding increased cost of vehicles because of Lemon Law litigation.

Plaintiffs’ MIL 18:  Non-party witnesses shall be excluded from the courtroom.

The Court will also hear argument on Plaintiffs’ MIL 20.

3.      Defendant’s Motions In Limine

The Court denies Defendant’s motions in limine 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7.  They are too general to allow the Court to issue any orders which will provide meaningful guidance in the case.

The Court will hear argument on Defendant’s Motion in Limine 3.