Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2021-00044511-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 16, 2023

11/17/2023  09:30:00 AM  C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2021-00044511-CU-BC-CTL PERKINS VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 06/09/2023

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents is DENIED without prejudice to further meet and confer. The Court finds that the meet and confer was inadequate and that the Separate Statement filed does not comply with the Code.

This is an action based upon the Song-Beverly Act involving a single 2016 Ford-150 leased by plaintiff.

In January 2023, Plaintiff served 284 discovery Requests on Ford, including everything from user manuals for unspecified Ford databases to any email ever exchanged regarding any engine issue in numerous models of Ford vehicles as well as demands for inspection of every Ford vehicle nationwide ever repurchased by Ford that underwent an engine repair. (Id., Ex. C.) Ford served responses on April 17, 2023. (The Court stayed proceedings, including discovery, pending the Court's ruling on Ford's Motion to Compel Arbitration, from February 7, 2023 to March 17, 2023). Ford served documents in response to some discovery requests. (Id., Ex. D.) Ford also objected to many of the requests primarily on the basis of the discovery being overbroad.

On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff served a 36-page meet and confer letter regarding Ford's Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production and Interrogatories. (See Biemann Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. E.) The Court has reviewed the letter. In the letter, the responses are grouped together under general categories. Plaintiff demanded that Ford supplement its Response to all discovery requests - including those to which Ford had responded in full and asserted no objection. (Id.) Ford responded to Plaintiff's letter on May 31, and took issue with the presentation of plaintiff's letter.

The Court agrees that plaintiff's letter does very little to move the ball forward with respect to discovery and only articulates in stark terms a demand that Ford drop all objections and respond to everything as requested. The Court notes that plaintiff's letter does not respond to single response given by Ford but appears to be largely a treatise on the law regarding discovery responses.

Ford responded with efforts to compromise. Specifically, Ford responded that it would produce discovery related to the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff's vehicle for the same claims and concerns allegedly exhibited in Plaintiff's vehicle in the repair orders. Other compromises, among others, included customer and other contacts received by Ford, including through its call center, sufficient to identify complaints made by California customers of vehicles that are of the same year, make, and model and symptom codes used by Ford to run the searches of its databases.

Plaintiff's response was an email again demanding that Ford supplement its Response to every single Request for Production. (Id., ¶ 5, Ex. G.) Ford responded immediately and referred Plaintiff to its prior response in which it offered significant compromises and asked for a telephone simple call. (Id.) Instead of responding, Plaintiff's Counsel filed the instant Motion before the next business day-on Sunday, June 9, 2023. (Id.) Before filing a motion to compel, the moving party must declare that he or she has made a serious attempt to obtain an informal resolution of each issue. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2984229  41 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PERKINS VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY [IMAGED]  37-2021-00044511-CU-BC-CTL 1293.) The law requires the moving party to engage in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the issues informally. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2016.040, 2025.450.) This means that the parties must attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement, 177 Cal. App.4th at 1294). The purpose of the meet and confer requirement is to bridge the gap between the parties – to force lawyers to reexamine their positions, and to narrow their discovery disputes to the irreducible minimum, before calling upon the court to resolve the matter. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc.

(2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1016.) Here, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to meet and confer with Ford in good faith attempt to resolve this dispute without court intervention.

Courts have held '[a]rgument is not the same as informal negotiation' Id. at 1294; that attempting informal resolution means more than the mere attempt by the discovery proponent 'to persuade the objector of the error of his ways' Id.; and that 'a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with [opposing]counsel.... Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.' Id. The letters described above were an insufficient attempt at informal resolution.

The parties are ordered to a meet and confer over the voluminous discovery. This requires more than letter-writing, but must involve a face-to-face or, at least, a telephonic conversation that discusses the the issues. To the extent that the parties disagree after a telephonic conversation, the parties can appear before this Court for an IDC. Only after the issues have been narrowed after a thorough meet and confer, plaintiff can seek court intervention.

In addition, the Separate Statement filed by plaintiff does not comply with the Code. California Rule of Court 3.1345 provides: 'Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference. The separate statement must include--for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested – the following....' In the Separate Statement, Plaintiff provides an introductory, 14-page statement that is copied directly, word-for-word, from the meet and confer letters sent by Plaintiff's Counsel. (See Plaintiff's Separate Statement, p. 2-16; Biemann Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. E, pp. 11-21.) With respect to Request Nos. 1, 17, 20, 55, 72, and 80, Plaintiff simply restates the Request, cites a paragraph of hornbook law from the same meet and confer letter, and then states that 'Defendant's boilerplate objections are without merit, as explained above.' (See Pl.'s Sep. St., pp. 18, 26, 38, 45. 34, 49.) Plaintiff does not mention Ford's discovery responses or objections at all. For the remaining Requests (Request Nos. 2, 3, 7, 12, 20-21, 23-24, 29, 40-41, 57-58, 73-75, and 81), Plaintiff does not provide a Separate Statemen, but states that 'Plaintiff incorporates by reference the reasons set forth . . . supra.' (See id., pp. 20-21, 23-24, 28-32, 34-36, 39.) As with Plaintiff's 'meet and confer' letters, the instant Motion and Separate Statement does not adequately discuss Ford's discovery responses. CRC 3.1345(c)(2) requires: 'The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers.' Separate Statements are more than mere busy-work. The Court uses the Separate Statement in resolving specific issues in discovery. Though voluminous at times, the organization of the Separate Statement substantially assists in resolving the discovery dispute.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2984229  41