Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01643, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01643, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01643 Hearing Date: October 15, 2024 Dept: C

Leslie M Lopez, et al. vs American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Case No.: 22NWCV01643

Hearing Date: October 15, 2024 @ 10:30 a.m.

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Lesile M. Lopez and Francisco Lopez’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production, Set Two, is CONTINUED to January 28, 2025 in Department SE-C.

Plaintiffs to give notice.

This is a lemon law action. Plaintiffs Lesile M. Lopez and Francisco Lopez (“Plaintiffs”) contend that Defendant American Honda Motor Co. (“Defendant”) violated the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act by failing to repair or repurchase Plaintiff’s 2020 Honda Passport. During the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or developed numerous defects that Defendant’s authorized repair facility was unable to conform to warranty.

On October 31, 2023, Plaintiffs served their second set of Requests for Production of Documents upon Defendant. (Derderian Decl. ¶ 18; Ex. 3.) On December 18, 2023, Defendant served verified responses. Plaintiffs contend the responses are insufficient.

Plaintiffs have sent two meet and confer letters to Defendant, and Defendant has not responded to either one. (Derderian Decl., ¶¶ 21-23.) The Court finds that these meet and confer efforts are insufficient given the number of discovery requests at issue.

The Court is not persuaded that counsel have exhausted their meet and confer obligations pursuant to the Code. Counsel are advised that their meet and confer efforts should go beyond merely sending letters stating their respective positions. (See Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439.) “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate…involves the exercise of discretion. The level of effort at an informal resolution which satisfies the ‘reasonable and good faith attempt’ standard depends upon the circumstances. In a larger, more complex discovery request, a greater effort at informal resolution may be warranted. In a simpler, or more narrowly focused case, a more modest effort may suffice. The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of the discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant. Judges have broad powers and responsibilities to determine what measures and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances.” (Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

Therefore, Counsel are ORDERED to make further efforts to resolve the issues presented. If, after exhausting those efforts, court intervention is needed, counsel may appear and argue the merits on the continued hearing date. If counsel are unable to informally resolve their discovery disputes, then counsel are instructed to submit a JOINT STATEMENT with a detailed outline of the remaining disputed issues for which a ruling is required. Counsel are also strongly advised to review the standing CMC order issued in Department F for guidance on the manner to handle disputed items. The joint statement must be FILED on or before January 17, 2025 at noon.