Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV01250, Date: 2024-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01250, Date: 2024-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01250 Hearing Date: September 12, 2024 Dept: C

ESCOBAR v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC

CASE NO.: 23NWCV01250

HEARING: 09/12/24

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents (set one) is CONTINUED to Thursday, February 20, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C.

Moving party to give notice.

This lemon law action was filed on April 25, 2023. Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s further responses to Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”) (set one) Nos. 18, 24, 35-41, 45, and 46.

In Opposition, Defendant indicates that it has amended it’s responses to RPDs Nos. 24, 35, 37, and 37 and that the Motion is now moot as to these RPDs. Defendant otherwise stands by its objections.

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.)

Counsel are instructed to further meet and confer on the issues outlined in the subject Motions.

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 outlining the remaining disputed issues for which a ruling is required. The joint statement must be FILED on or before Monday, February 10, 2025.

In addition, Counsel are ORDERED to review the Case Management Conference Order issued on August 16, 2023. The discovery issues outlined in the Subject Motion may be moot.