Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV00842, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00842    Hearing Date: December 12, 2022    Dept: 55

VARDANYAN v. CENTURY WEST, LLC                                  22STCV00842

Hearing Date:  12/12/22,  Dept. 55

#1:   MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO LIMIT PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY, AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS.

 

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

 

MP:  Defendant

RP:  Plaintiffs

 

 

Summary

 

On 1/10/22, plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging that Defendant made false representations regarding availability to purchase an extended warranty for $3,001, in the sale of a 2016 BMW to plaintiffs, while knowing the warranty did not cover commercial business that Defendant knew plaintiffs planned for the vehicle, and so plaintiffs did not obtain added coverage to pay for future vehicle repairs.

 

 

MP Positions

 

Moving party requests a protective order quashing all plaintiffs’ discovery, except for just form interrogatories, and imposing monetary sanctions ($2,025), on grounds including the following:

·         Plaintiffs included many irrelevant Lemon Law discovery requests because they specialize in that area of clients.

·         Requests also include documents that already are in plaintiffs’ possession.

·         The Requests are oppressive.

·         Plaintiffs’ attorney ignored attempts to meet and confer.

 

 

RP Positions

 

Opposing parties advocate denying, and sanctions against Defendant and counsel ($2,470), for reasons including the following:

 

·         The requests included 67 Requests for Admission, 73 Specially Prepared Interrogatories, and 42 Requests for Production.  Each of those requests and interrogatories is either directly, or indirectly related to this instant action. 

·         Defendant failed to meet and confer before filing the motion. If defense counsel had met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel, then counsel might have considered opinions backed up with proper reasoning, relevant arguments, or evidence.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

Preliminarily, the Court inquires whether meeting and conferring resolved or narrowed this matter, since the motion hearing was continued from 12/12/22.

If the parties have failed to informally resolve this matter, then the Court orders this overbroad motion off calendar, without prejudice to file another motion for protective order narrowed to excuse responses to specified numbers of discovery requests that are actually not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The motion is an overbroad request to restrict all discovery except form interrogatories.

Similarly, the discovery requests overly broadly include many items inapplicable to the Complaint alleging fraudulent sale of an extended warranty.  No Lemon Law or other discovery unrelated to the Complaint will be allowed in this case.

A discovery motion should not be denied automatically based upon the reason that the moving parties failed to meet and confer in good faith.  Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434.  “‘A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate . . . involves the exercise of discretion.’”  Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1016.  Accord Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1293-94.  A motion for a protective order “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”  CCP §2019.030(b).  See also  Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 402 (“The responding party must also demonstrate that it made “a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented” by the motion for a protective order.”).

Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice.  E.g.,  Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557-58.  “ ‘[S]ubstantial justification” has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.”  Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.  A decision whether to impose sanctions for failures to meet and confer has been reviewed on appeal for an abuse its discretion.  Parker v. Wolters Kluwer U. S., Inc. (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 285, 297;   Leko v. Cornerstone Bldg. Inspection Serv. (2001) 86 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1124.