Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV02060, Date: 2024-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02060, Date: 2024-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02060 Hearing Date: May 14, 2024 Dept: C

Victor A. Batres vs General Motors LLC

Case No.: 23NWCV02060

Hearing Date: May 14, 2024 @ 10:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff to give notice.

This action alleges that Defendant General Motors, Inc. (“Defendant”) violated California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act”) by failing to repair Plaintiff Victor A. Batres’s (“Plaintiff”) 2021 GMC Yukon XL 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 27, 2023, Plaintiff served his first set of Request for Production and Special Interrogatories upon Defendant. (Decl. Chae ¶11, Ex. 6.) On August 25, 2023, GM served its unverified responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories. (Decl. Chae ¶12, Ex. 7). Verifications were subsequently electronically served on September 21, 2023. (Id. at ¶15, Ex. 9). Plaintiff contends the responses were insufficient.

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. (Chase Decl., Ex. 12, 14, 16, and 18.)

Plaintiff Victor A. Batres’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One) is CONTINUED to July 30, 2024 at 10:30 a.m. in Department SE-C. 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. 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 joint statement must be FILED on or before July 23, 2024 at noon.