Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV01319, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01319, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01319 Hearing Date: April 23, 2024 Dept: C

Edwardo Melgoza vs Kia Motors America, Inc.

Case No.: 23NWCV01319

Hearing Date: April 23, 2024 @ 10:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Edwardo Melgoza’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production is CONTINUED to June 11, 2024 at 10:30 a.m. in Department SE-C.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

This action alleges that Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. (“Defendant”) violated California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act”) by failing to repair Plaintiff’s 2015 Kia Sedona vehicle (the “Subject Vehicle”). 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 July 10, 2023, Plaintiff propounded his first set of discovery, including the subject Requests for Production. (Declaration of Jennifer C. Koo (“Koo Decl.”), at ¶ 3.)

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.)

In Opposition, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs filed the instant motion before the parties had an opportunity to the meet and confer. Defendants assert that they requested Plaintiff’s availability to further meet and confer, but that Plaintiffs instead filed the instant motion. (Koo Decl. at ¶ 7.)

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. The joint statement must be FILED on or before June 4, 2024.