Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV01745, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01745, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01745 Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 Dept: C

Luis Omar Rodriguez vs Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

Case No.: 23NWCV01745

Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 @ 10:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Luis Omar Rodriguez Motion to Compel Further Request for Production is CONTINUED to May 28, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Department SE-C.

Defendant to give notice.

Background

On February 8, 2022, Plaintiff purchased a 2017 Volkswagen Jetta, bearing VIN: 3VW5T7AJ6HM327683 (“Subject Vehicle”).

On or about July 21, 2023, Plaintiff propounded Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on Defendant seeking information to support the asserted claims. Plaintiff contends Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s RFPs with boilerplate objections that are not compliant with the California Code of Civil Procedure nor California case law.

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 the reply papers, Defendants contend that Counsel responded to the meet and confer letters to offer availability to meet and confer telephonically. Plaintiff did not call counsel, but instead only sent letters. Considering the evidence, the Court considers that Plaintiff sent generic letters and did not consider the specific facts of the instant case such as Plaintiff stating that RFP No. 29-32 were boilerplate objections, whereas the evidence shows that Defendant responded with substantive responses.

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 May 20, 2024 at noon.