Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV01941, Date: 2024-08-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01941, Date: 2024-08-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01941 Hearing Date: August 13, 2024 Dept: C

Olga Diaz vs Nissan North America, Inc.

Case No.: 23NWCV01941

Hering Date: August 13, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m.

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Olga Diaz’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is CONTINUED to November 5, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Department SE-C.

Plaintiff to give notice.

This is a lemon law action. Plaintiff Olga Diaz (“Plaintiff”) contends that Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (“Defendant”) violated the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act”) by failing to repair Plaintiff’s 2021 Nissan Rogue. 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 November 8, 2023, Plaintiff served her first set of Request for Production of Documents upon Defendant. (Enav Decl., ¶ 12; Ex. 2.) On December 27, 2023 Defendant served its responses to Plaintiff’s request, but the response were not code compliant. (Enav Decl., ¶ 13; Ex. 3.) Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1 through 65, and the documents corresponding to these requests.

The Court signed a stipulated protective order on June 5, 2024.

The motion is unopposed as of August 9, 2024.

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.)

Given the amount of discovery at stake, the Court believes that further meet and confer efforts will resolve many of the issues before the Court, especially now that the Court has signed the stipulated protective order. The Court is hopeful this stipulated protective order will allow for a freer exchange of discovery.

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 are also strongly advised to review the standing CMC order issued in Department F for guidance on the manner to handle disputed items. The revised joint separate statement must be FILED on or before October 25, 2024. The joint statement should reflect what documents, if any, have been produced by Nissan following entry of a protective order.