Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV02558, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02558, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02558 Hearing Date: April 18, 2024 Dept: C

BARRAGAN v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

CASE NO.: 23NWCV02558

HEARING: 04/18/24

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (set one) is CONTINUED to Thursday, June 13, 2024 at 10:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C.

Moving Party to give Notice.

This lemon law action was filed by Plaintiff GABRIEL BARRAGAN, JR. (“Plaintiff”) on August 14, 2023.

On March 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed the subject Motion, which seeks to compel Defendant’s further responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) Nos. 1-3, 7, 9, 12, 17, 18, 22, 24, 28, 31, 39, 40, 41, 49, 51, 54, 56, 57, 74, 75, 84, 85, and 86.

In Opposition, Defendant argues that Supplemental Responses to the outstanding discovery were served on March 4, 2024 (the date this Motion was filed) and Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith over these Supplemental Responses before filing this Motion. Defendant further argues that the RPDs put in issue by this Motion are irrelevant or overbroad.

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.)

Counsel are instructed to further meet and confer on the issues outlined in the subject Motions.

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 outlining the remaining disputed issues for which a ruling is required. The joint statement must be FILED on or before Monday, June 3, 2024.