Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV01803, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01803, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01803 Hearing Date: April 16, 2024 Dept: C

Phala Kieng, et al. vs Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, et al

Case No.: 23NWCV01803

Hearing Date: April 16, 2024 @ 9:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Phala Kieng’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production is CONTINUED to June 4, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Department SE-C.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

This is a lemon law action. Plaintiffs allege that on or about October 13, 2021, Plaintiffs purchased a 2020 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, bearing VIN No.: SALZJ2FX4LH016575 (“Subject Vehicle”). During the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or developed numerous defects that Defendant’s authorized repair facility was unable to conform towarranty. According to the repair and warranty records, Plaintiffs presented the Subject Vehicle to Defendant’s authorized repair facility on numerous occasions for the various defects, including the suspension, transmission, electrical, and engine system defects. (Declaration of Joshua Kohanoff in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (“JK Decl.”) ¶ 4, Ex. 1.)

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 Plaintiffs’ availability to further meet and confer and suggested several dates, but Defendants have not received a response from Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Abouesh Decl., ¶ 4.)

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 24, 2024.