Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00331, Date: 2024-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00331    Hearing Date: March 27, 2024    Dept: C

JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.

CASE NO.:  23NWCV00331

HEARING: 3/27/24 @ 9:30 AM

#5

TENTATIVE RULING

I.             Plaintiff Asuncion Jimenez and Huntington Investments Corporation’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One is CONTINUED. 

II.            Plaintiff Asuncion Jimenez and Huntington Investments Corporation’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is CONTINUED. 

III.          Plaintiff Asuncion Jimenez and Huntington Investments Corporation’s motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents, set one is CONTINUED. 

IV.         Plaintiff Asuncion Jimenez and Huntington Investments Corporation’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One is CONTINUED. 

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

This is a Song-Beverly action. Plaintiffs Asuncion Jimenez and Huntington Investments Corporation move to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Production of Documents (Set One) and Requests for Admissions (Set One).   

Timeliness

Notice of the motion to compel further must be provided within 45 days of service of the 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).)

The 45-day rule to bring a motion to compel is mandatory and jurisdictional “in the sense that it renders court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v. Super. Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

On August 8, 2023, Defendant electronically served verified responses to Plaintiff’s first set of form interrogatories. (Decl. Saeedian, ¶ 8, Ex. 2.) The 45-day deadline to file a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is September 22, 2023, extended by two court days for electronic service.

Plaintiffs filed the instant motions on September 25, 2023. Thus, the motion is timely.

Meet and Confer

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

For purposes of determining whether a motion to compel discovery was preceded by a reasonable and good faith effort to meet and confer, such 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. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.)

The Court finds Plaintiffs met and conferred in good faith, but Defendant did not. Defendant did not respond to Plaintiffs’ meet and confer correspondence, including Plaintiffs’ request to extend the time to file the instant motion for Defendant’s counsel to review the letter and for the parties to resolve the issues. (Decl. Saeedian, ¶ 9, Ex. 3.) Instead, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs demanded verifications within three days and did not reasonably tailor the requests to the specifics of this case. (Decl. Vasseghi, ¶ 7.) The Court does not know why Defendant did not address this with Plaintiffs.

Based on the above, the Court continues the hearing to Wednesday, May 22, 2024 at 9:30 A.M. in Dept. SE-C. The parties must submit a joint statement by May 13, 2024.  If discovery issues have not been resolved, the Court will hear arguments at the hearing.