Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV00656, Date: 2024-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00656, Date: 2024-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00656 Hearing Date: June 12, 2024 Dept: C

VARGAS, ET AL. v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

CASE NO.: 23NWCV00656

HEARING: 6/12/24 @ 10:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Aida Solares Vargas and William Solares Vargas’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is CONTINUED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

This is a Song-Beverly action. Plaintiffs Aida Solares Vargas and William Solares Vargas sue Hyundai Motor America for breach of express warranty.

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to request numbers 3, 18, 20-21, 24-27, 29-32, 37-41, 45- 46 served on defendant Hyundai Motor America. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further responses to document requests if the party finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection is without merit or too general.

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 October 10, 2023, the defendant served unverified responses to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of documents. (Decl. Mukai, ¶ 9, Ex. C.) Responses consisted of both factual responses and objections. (Decl. Mukai, ¶ 9, Ex. C.) The 45-day clock runs only upon service of verified responses, and responses consisting of both factual responses and objections must be verified. (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 136.) Neither party has submitted evidence that Defendant has 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.)

For purposes of determining whether a motion to compel discovery was preceded by a reasonable and good faith effort to meet and confer, such an attempt at informal resolution requires 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.)

Based on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration, the Court finds that the parties did not sufficiently meet and confer. (Decl. Mukai, ¶¶ 9-13, Ex. C, D.) Plaintiff’s counsel sent a detailed meet-and-confer correspondence, but the parties did not talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Decl. Mukai, ¶¶ 9-13, Ex. C, D.)

The parties are ordered to meet and confer again. If court intervention is still necessary, the parties are ordered to submit a joint statement in 20 days regarding the specific items of discovery still at issue.

The motion is CONTINUED to July 17, 2024, at 10:30 A.M. in Dept. SE-C.