Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV01836, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01836, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01836 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: SEC

SHEN v. FOREST RIVER, INC.

CASE NO.: 23NWCV01836

HEARING: 8/21/24 @ 10:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Shen Rui’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is CONTINUED to November 6, 2024 at 10:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

This is a Song-Beverly action about a 2022 Coachmen Leprechaun 260 DS. Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, request numbers 16 through 21.

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 November 14, 2023, Defendant served verified responses to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of documents. (Decl. Bedwan, ¶ 12, Ex. 3.) Responses consisted of both factual responses and objections. (Decl. Bedwan, ¶ 12, Ex. 3.)

Adding the days for electronic service, the clock ran on January 2, 2024. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3), 2016.050.) Plaintiff filed on December 26, 2023.

Thus, Plaintiff is timely.

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.)

On September 22, 2023, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter outlining electronically stored information requirements. (Bedwan Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. 4.) On November 28, 2023, Plaintiff sent a further meet and confer letter about the apparent deficiencies in Defendant’s written discovery responses and document production. (Bedwan Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. 5.) Defendant sent a meet and confer letter that did not address any of the stated deficiencies. (Bedwan Decl., ¶ 16, Ex. 6.) Plaintiff filed the instant motion on December 26, 2023. On August 8, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition, addressing the discovery requests generally rather than addressing each individual request. On August 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.

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. Super. Ct. (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. Super. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

Given the amount of discovery at issue, the Court believes that further meet and confer efforts will resolve many of the issues before the Court. Therefore, 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 REVISED JOINT SEPARATE STATEMENT with a detailed outline of the remaining disputed issues for which a ruling is required. Counsel is also strongly advised to review the standing case management conference order issued in Department F for guidance on how to handle disputed items. The Court will follow the order. The revised joint separate statement must be FILED on or before October 25, 2024.