Judge Melissa R. Mccormick, Case Valles v. General Motors LLC 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: Valles v. General Motors LLC, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Pedro Valles’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff Pedro Valles moves to compel defendant General Motors LLC to provide further responses to plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42. In his reply, plaintiff withdrew the motion with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42. Reply at 3:12-13. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is denied.

Plaintiff served his Special Interrogatories (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. 4. Defense counsel replied to plaintiff’s counsel’s letter by letter on June 13, 2022. Id. Ex. 5. In the June 13, 2022 letter, regarding Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 23, 30, 31, and 36, defendant “referred plaintiff to the documents that contained the information responsive to these interrogatories, including: any incidentally-obtained repair orders, the repair orders produced concurrently in response to plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, which would contain the information that Plaintiff seeks; the Global Warranty Vehicle History Printout; the Service Manual; and the New Vehicle Warranty.” Id. Regarding Interrogatory Nos. 21, 22 and 24, defendant “maintain[ed] its objections” that the interrogatories seek confidential, trade secret, and irrelevant information. Id. 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 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 interrogatories after defendant’s June 13, 2022 letter. Paragraph 8 of the Goldsmith Declaration is identical to paragraph 8 of the Goldsmith Declaration (ROA 51) addressed in the court’s August 17, 2023 order (ROA 104). See 8/17/23 Order.

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, and no evidence plaintiff attempted to determine, and then discuss with defendant, whether information responsive to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 23, 30, 31 and/or 36 is contained in documents defendant produced. 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 interrogatories, but none of the emails attached to counsel’s declaration reflects correspondence about the interrogatories, much less an “attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” Civ. Proc. Code § 2016.040 (emphasis added); see also 8/17/23 Order (addressing Goldsmith Declaration filed in support of motion to compel further responses to requests for production). As the court has previously advised, before plaintiff foists numerous interrogatories on the court for resolution, plaintiff must demonstrate he made a serious attempt to resolve each interrogatory informally. Plaintiff has not done so, and plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 21 and 22 is also denied because those interrogatories are overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiff’s request for an order that defendant serve a differently-worded verification is denied.

Defendant to give notice.