Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: Valles v. General Motors LLC, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Pedro Valles’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production
Plaintiff Pedro Valles moves to compel defendant General Motors LLC to provide further responses and document production in response to plaintiff’s Requests for Production (Set One) Nos. 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 40. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff served his Requests for Production (Set One) on January 28, 2022. On April 29, 2022 defendant served responses. Plaintiff’s counsel sent defense counsel a meet and confer letter on June 3, 2022. Goldsmith Decl. Ex. 3. Defense counsel replied to plaintiff’s counsel’s letter by letter on June 13, 2022. Id. Ex. 4. In the June 23, 2022 letter, defendant agreed to produce (i) additional responsive “TSBs” (Request No. 29); (ii) upon entry of a protective order, defendant’s “Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual and [defendant’s] policies and procedures used to evaluate lemon law claims and repurchase requests made under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act ‘during the RELEVANT PERIOD as it relates to Plaintiffs and the SUBJECT VEHICLE’” (Request Nos. 13, 21, 22, 30, 31 and 40); and (iii) upon entry of a protective order, “other customer complaints within [defendant’s] ESI database that are substantially similar to Plaintiff’s complaint(s) concerning the alleged defects for vehicles purchased in California of the same year, make and model as the Subject Vehicle” (Request Nos. 32 and 33). Plaintiff’s counsel states in his declaration that he signed and returned a protective order. Goldsmith Decl. ¶ 11. No protective order has been entered in this case.
Plaintiff’s counsel also states that in addition to sending the June 3, 2022 letter, plaintiff’s counsel “placed telephone calls to Defendant’s counsel, exchanged additional emails and granted Defendant’s counsel extensions of time to provide the promised documents and supplemental responses.” Goldsmith Decl. ¶ 8. None of the exhibits to the Goldsmith Declaration reflects the substance of the telephone calls or any further meet and confer efforts by email or otherwise regarding the above requests for production after defendant’s June 13, 2022 letter.
As an initial matter, defendant has not offered any reasons it should not be compelled to produce the documents it agreed to produce. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses and document production in response to Request Nos. 13, 21, 22, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 40 is granted to the extent defendant has not produced the documents it agreed to produce in its June 13, 2022 letter. Defendant shall provide further, complete, verified, Code-compliant responses to Request Nos. 13, 21, 22, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 40 by August 28, 2023, and defendant shall produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to Request Nos. 13, 21, 22, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 40 as agreed in defendant’s June 13, 2022 letter on or before August 28, 2023. Should defendant withhold any responsive documents based on any privilege, defendant shall also serve by August 28, 2023 a privilege log identifying all documents defendant has withheld from production on the basis of a privilege(s). The log shall identify the privilege and set forth sufficient information for plaintiff and the court, if necessary, to evaluate the privilege claims.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to provide further responses and document production other than as set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph is denied. Plaintiff’s motion does not demonstrate plaintiff conducted a reasonable and good faith meet and confer effort before filing this motion. The meet and confer requirement is designed to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order. Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016. There must be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution. Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.
The parties’ papers do not reflect “a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution,” or an “attempt to talk the matter over, compare [counsel’s] views, consult, and deliberate.” Clement, 177 Cal.App.4th at 1294. Indeed, there is no evidence plaintiff discussed any of the specific issues presented by this motion with defendant after receiving defense counsel’s June 13, 2022 letter. Plaintiff’s counsel states he “placed telephone calls to Defendant’s counsel,” but none of the exhibits attached to counsel’s declaration describes the substance of any such calls—or even reveals whether plaintiff’s counsel actually spoke with defense counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel states he “exchanged additional emails” with defense counsel about the requests, but none of the emails attached to counsel’s declaration reflects correspondence about the requests, much less an “attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” Civ. Proc. Code § 2016.040 (emphasis added). Before plaintiff foists numerous requests for production on the court for resolution, plaintiff must demonstrate he made a serious attempt to resolve each request informally. Plaintiff has not done so, and plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied, other than as set forth above.
Plaintiff’s request for an order that defendant serve a differently-worded verification is denied.
Defendant to give notice.