Judge Kenneth J. Medel, Case Number: 37-2023-00014859-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2023-00014859-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 18, 2024

04/19/2024 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 Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00014859-CU-BC-CTL MEZA VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 11/07/2023

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses is DENIED without prejudice.

As to the motion, the specific requests at issue in the Notice of Motion is not consistent with the numbering in the Separate Statement.

The Notice of Motion seeks further production of Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1, 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71- 81, 82-92 and 93. Not all of these requests are in the Separate Statement.

In addition, the numbers do not correspond accurately to the numbers in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

In turn, the Opposition only addresses the following requests in the Separate Statement: Request for Production Nos. 3, 12, 15, 17-25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 37, 40, 41, 43, 45, 47, 54-56, 58, 61-63, 66-68, 70, 71, 73, 75-78, 81-83, and 85.

The Court cannot determine the appropriate requests at issue.

Further, the Separate Statement in the motion does not comply with CRC 3.1345(c). There is no provision in the code for a 'definition' section in a Separate Statement. Further, there is no allowance in a Separate Statement for incorporating other sections by reference. The Separate Statement provided appears to not include all the discovery at issue (at least when compared to the Notice and the Memorandum of Points & Authorities) and its contents are unhelpful. Separate Statements are not merely ornamentation for the motion. The Court needs an accurate Separate Statement drafted in strict compliance with the code in order to properly evaluate the request.

In addition, the Court finds that there has been inadequate effort to meet and confer to resolve the issues in this case prior to a motion.

Plaintiff had an obligation to meet and confer with GM to try to resolve this discovery dispute before filing his motion. (Code Civ. Proc., � 2025.450.) Plaintiff had to show a reasonable, good faith effort. (Id.; see also Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016-17.) Counsel must 'attempt to talk the matter over, compare views, consult and deliberate.' (Townsend v. Sup.Ct. (EMC Mortg. Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1443.) On July 17, 2023, Plaintiff sent GM a form letter, sent in every case, about Electronically Stored Information ('ESI'). (Id. Ex. 7.) That form letter did not address GM's responses and/or objections to any discovery requests, nor could it; GM had just received the discovery requests. Essentially, Plaintiff sent a unilateral demand to GM regarding ESI, and couched it as a meet-and-confer letter. This letter is no way a 'good faith' effort to 'meet and confer' about a discovery 'dispute.' Regardless, GM responded in good faith on July 26, 2023. (Id. Ex. 8.) On September 14, 2023, Plaintiff sent GM a letter about its discovery responses but rather than narrow the scope of the discovery requests at issue, Plaintiff reiterated its position, and demanded that GM Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3047577 32 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: MEZA VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00014859-CU-BC-CTL withdraw its objections and supplement its previous production. (Id. Ex. 9.) On October 3, 2023, GM responded to Plaintiff's September 14th letter, providing responses as to its discovery responses and objections, and referred Plaintiff to specific documents produced in discovery.

(Id. Ex. 11.) GM also produced additional documents pursuant to the entry of an enclosed protective order. (Id.) 7. On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff sent further correspondence, claiming impasse and that Plaintiff will proceed with filing a motion to compel. (Id. Ex. 12.) This meet and confer is not adequate. Based on representations from defense counsel, the letters from plaintiff are 'stock' letters sent in every case.

While the Court denies the motion as presented to the Court, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer either in person or on telephone to resolve the outstanding discovery issues. For guidance, with respect to documents seeking GM's internal analysis, investigations, communications, reports, government submissions, financial information, performance standards, diagnostic codes, and design-related documents (including other consumer complaints and matters) about the alleged 'defect' in vehicles other than Plaintiff's own Silverado, the Court would order responses limited to the year, make and model of plaintiff's vehicle.

To the extent the parties are not able to resolve the discovery issues after meet and confer, the Court encourages the parties to calendar an Independent Discovery Conference with the Court for assistance.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3047577 32