Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV03158, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV03158, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV03158 Hearing Date: May 7, 2024 Dept: C

Novi Sohn, et al. vs Kia America, Inc.

Case No.: 23NWCV03158

Hearing Date: May 7, 2024 @ 9:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Novi Sohn and Rhiekyu Sohn’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production (Set One) is CONTINUED to June 18, 2024 at 10:30 a.m. in Department SE-C.

Plaintiff to give notice.

This action alleges that Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. (“Defendant”) violated California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act”) by failing to repair Plaintiffs Novi Sohn and Rhiekyu Sohn’s (“Plaintiffs”) 2022 Kia Telluride 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 November 23, 2023, Plaintiffs propounded Request for Production of Documents, Set One. (Beck Decl., ¶ 17, Ex. 5.)

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. (Beck Decl., Ex. 15 p. 3.)

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 June 4, 2024.