Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV03071, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV03071, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV03071 Hearing Date: August 14, 2024 Dept: C

DENNIS v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV03071

HEARING: 8/14/24 @ 9:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Sean Antoine Dennis’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is CONTINUED November 6, 2024 at 10:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

This is a Song-Beverly action about a 2019 Jaguar F-Pace. Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, request numbers 1 through 31.

Timeliness

Notice of the motion to compel further must be provided within 45 days of service of the verified response or on or before any specific later date to which the parties have agreed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) This 45-day deadline runs from the date the verified response is served and is extended for service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure sections 1010.6, subdivision (a)(4) and 1013, subdivision (a). Failure to timely move to compel within the specified period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)

On December 19, 2023, Defendant served responses to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of documents. (Decl. Kohanoff, ¶ 18, 19, Ex. 4.) Responses consisted of both factual responses and objections. (Decl. Kohanoff, ¶ 19, Ex. 4.) On August 1, 2024, Defendant served supplemental responses. (Decl. Cho, ¶ 3, Ex. A.) The parties have not submitted evidence that Defendant served verifications.

Thus, the clock has not run.

Meet and Confer

The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff sent a detailed meet and confer letter outlining apparent deficiencies in Defendants’ responses. (Kohanoff Decl., ¶¶ 22-23, Ex. 5.) On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff sent a further meet and confer letter to address Defendants’ assertions that its discovery responses were code compliant. (Kohanoff Decl., ¶¶ 24-27, Ex. 6.) Plaintiff filed the instant motion on January 25, 2024. As of that date, Defendant had not responded to either of Plaintiff’s meet and confer attempts. (Kohanoff Decl., ¶ 28.) On August 1, 2024, Defendant filed a boilerplate opposition, specifically addressing only one discovery request (No. 30) among the 31 at issue. Also on August 1, 2024, Defendants served supplemental discovery responses. (Cho Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) On August 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a (mostly) boilerplate reply, addressing none of the supplemental responses Defendant served on August 1, 2024.

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.)

Given the amount of discovery at issue, the Court believes that further meet and confer efforts will resolve many of the issues before the Court. 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 REVISED JOINT SEPARATE 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 revised joint separate statement must be FILED on or before October 25, 2024.