Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV00796, Date: 2023-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00796    Hearing Date: April 8, 2024    Dept: P

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          I.        INTRODUCTION

           In this lemon law action, Plaintiff Elena Rubio (Rubio) alleges she bought a defective 2018 Honda Accord. The Complaint contains three causes of action: (1) lemon law- express warranty, (2) lemon law- implied warranty and (3) lemon law-Section 1793.2. Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production on December 29, 2023. Defendant Honda filed an opposition on March 25, 2024. Plaintiff filed a reply on March 28, 2024.

The Court continues the motion for the parties to further meet and confer.

II.      LEGAL STANDARD

          A party responding to requests for inspection must either provide a statement of compliance, represent that it lacks the ability to comply, or object. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210.) When a party propounding demands for inspection deems responses to the responses to be incomplete or evasive, or deems objections to be without merit, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses. Such motion must set forth facts showing good cause for the discovery, be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, and include a separate statement. Such motion must also be made within 45 days of verified responses or supplemental responses, or on or before any specific later date the parties have agreed to in writing. (Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310(a)-(c).)

          Code Civ. Proc. Section 2031.310(h) provides for the imposition of monetary sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes such a motion unless the court finds that the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

III.     ANALYSIS

          A. Meet and Confer

Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b) mandates that a motion to compel further responses be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. Code Civ. Proc. §2016.040 details: “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (CCP § 2016.040.)

Counsel for Plaintiff, David Derderian, declares that he sent a meet and confer letter regarding the allegedly deficient responses on November 17, 2023. (Derderian Decl. ¶ 18, referencing Exh. 5.) Counsel for Defendant responded to the letter on November 28, 2023. (Derderian Decl. ¶ 23, see Exh. 6.) Derderian then tried to call Defendant’s counsel but was unable to and left a voicemail. (Derderian Decl. ¶ 24.) The Court finds that the meet and confer was deficient. Plaintiff’s meet and confer does not discuss the fact that Honda did provide substantive responses to the majority of the discovery requests or otherwise address the sufficiency of the substantive responses. (See Opposition p. 6, Defendant’s Opposition to Separate Statement p. 14:11-13.)

Secondly, in her reply, Plaintiff mentions for the first time that she is seeking specific documents. (See Reply p. 3: 9-14.) The Court reminds parties that civil discovery is intended to be a self-executing system with minimal judicial intervention. (See Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Superior Ct. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 326, 331; Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1291-1292.)

The Court directs parties to meet and confer to resolve their discovery disputes. The Court intends to continue the hearing on this motion to a date convenient to the Court and parties.

         V.       CONCLUSION AND ORDER           

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Requests for Production, Set One is continued to allow for further meet and confer.

April 4, 2024 Judge Jared D. Moses