Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV02522, Date: 2025-04-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24CHCV02522 Hearing Date: April 22, 2025 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 4/22/25
Case #24CHCV02522
MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Request for
Production of Documents, Set 1)
Motion filed on 11/15/24.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Daniel Hossa
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Kia America, Inc.
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The hearing on the motion will be
continued.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of Plaintiff Daniel Hossa’s
(Plaintiff) purchase of a certified-preowned (CPO) 2019 Kia Sorento (the
Vehicle) on 1/9/21. The Vehicle was
accompanied by a Defendant Kia America Inc. (Defendant) new and full CPO
warranty, and therefore constitutes a “new motor vehicle” under the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the Act).
See Civil Code 1792.22(e)(2).
Plaintiff contends that the Vehicle was delivered to him
with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other
serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to
structural system defects. Plaintiff
contends that despite presenting the Vehicle to Defendant’s authorized repair
facility, Kia of Valencia, on at least three occasions the defects continue to
persist. Plaintiff further contends that
Defendant was aware of the types of defects plaguing the Vehicle and has failed
to adequately compensate Plaintiff for the Vehicle pursuant to the Act.
On 7/11/24, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant
for: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2)
Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty and (3) Violation of
Song-Beverly Act – Civil Code 1793.2. On
8/8/24, Defendant answered the complaint.
On 8/27/24, Plaintiff propounded Request for Production of Documents,
Set 1, on Defendant. (Gopstein Decl.,
Ex.3). On 10/1/24, Defendant responded
to the discovery requests. (Id.,
Ex.4).
Plaintiff contends the responses include boilerplate,
non-code compliant objections and Defendant failed to produce any responsive
documents with the responses. (Gopstein
Decl.). However, some documents were
later produced after the execution of a protective order. (Gopstein Decl., Ex.6). On 10/17/24, Plaintiff’s counsel sent
Defendant’s counsel a meet and confer letter regarding the claimed deficient
responses. (Gopstein Decl., Ex.5). On 11/4/24, Defendant’s counsel responded to
the letter explaining Defendant’s position and requesting a telephone
conference to further discuss any unresolved issues. (Id., Ex.6). Plaintiff’s counsel did not further meet and
confer. (Gopstein Decl. ¶21).
Rather, on 11/15/24, Plaintiff filed and served the
instant motion seeking an order striking Defendant’s objections and compelling Defendant to provide
further responses and produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s Request for
Production of Documents, Set 1, Nos. 1-31.
Defendant has opposed the motion and Plaintiff has filed a reply to the
opposition.
ANALYSIS
A motion to compel further responses to document requests
must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration which states facts showing
a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution of each issue
presented by the motion. CCP 2031.310(b)(2);
CCP 2016.040. The meet and confer requirement is meant to force
attorneys to reexamine their positions and narrow the discovery disputes to the
irreducible minimum before seeking court intervention. Stewart (2001) 87 CA4th 1006, 1016.
After receiving Defendant’s responses to the subject
discovery requests, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a meet and
confer letter which began by stating that the letter was being sent “to request
to formally meet and confer” and indicating that Plaintiff’s counsel was
“hopeful” that counsel for the parties “can discuss these matters and
informally resolve any and all discovery disputes without the need for Court
intervention.” (See Gopstein
Decl., Ex.5, p.1). Plaintiff’s counsel
then went on to detail Plaintiff’s position with regard to the discovery
requests and Defendant’s responses and concluded the meet and confer letter by requesting
Defendant’s counsel’s availability for a telephone conference to meet and
confer regarding outstanding issues, among other things. (Id., p.12). Defense counsel responded to the meet and
confer letter by also requesting a telephone conference to discuss the issues, requesting
Plaintiff’s counsel’s availability for same and then setting forth Defendant’s
position with regard to the discovery requests.
(Gopstein Decl., Ex.6, p.1).
Despite the foregoing, Plaintiff made no effort to further
meet and confer by telephone in an attempt to narrow the issues in this motion
which concerns every document request in Plaintiff’s Request for Production of
Documents, Set 1. Rather, Plaintiff’s
counsel states:
“While Plaintiff’s counsel is
willing and able to further meet and confer, based on Defendant’s responses, as
well as prior dealings with this Defendant, it is abundantly clear that Defendant
will not likely supplement its responses absent an order from this Court.
As such, it is contended that further meet and confer efforts will not prove
fruitful.” (emphasis in original)
(Gopstein Decl. ¶21).
The foregoing statement is confusing and
unsupported. Since Plaintiff’s counsel claims
to be willing and able to further meet
and confer, it is not clear why this effort was not made before
the instant motion was filed as required by law. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel’s claim
that Defendant will not “likely” supplement its responses without a Court order
is not supported with any evidence.
Plaintiff’s counsel bases the foregoing claim on the responses at issue
and a vague reference to unspecified “prior dealings with this Defendant.” (Gopstein Decl. ¶21). However, Plaintiff’s counsel ignores the fact
that defense counsel made some concessions in the responsive meet and confer
letter. For example, with regard to
Requests 23-29, defense counsel indicated that Defendant was “agreeable to the
scope of discovery laid out in the CMO addendums noted in your letter” and
asked Plaintiff’s counsel to “[p]lease send [Defendant] a proposed order that we
can jointly submit to the Court.”
(Gopstein Decl., Ex.6, p.4).
Additionally, with regard to Requests 30 and 31, defense counsel
indicated that “in the interest of reaching a good faith resolution [Defendant]
will conduct a search for customer complaints using search terms taken from the
repair orders in this case and produce a compilation of the results as proposed
by your letter.”
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that in order to
satisfy the statutory requirement to meet and confer in good faith before
filing the instant motion, Plaintiff’s counsel was required to, minimally,
attempt to set up a telephone conference as contemplated by counsel for both
parties before filing and serving the instant motion.
CONCLUSION
The hearing on this motion will be continued.
Counsel for the parties are ordered to further meet and
confer either by telephone, video conference or in person to attempt to
informally resolve and/or narrow the issues presented by this motion.
If the issues presented by the motion are entirely
resolved, Plaintiff’s counsel must notify the Court and/or cancel the continued
motion hearing date online at least 5 court days before the continued hearing
date.
If the discovery dispute is not entirely resolved by the
further meet and confer efforts, at least 16 court days before the continued
hearing date, Plaintiff must file and serve a supplemental brief, limited to 15
pages, outlining the issues which remain, along with a revised separate
statement addressing the Requests and responses thereto which remain at issue. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s current separate
statement filed in support of the motion includes a 14-page “introduction”
which appears to be an improper attempt to exceed the 15-page limit for a
memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion. See CRC 3.1113(d); CRC 3.1345(c).
At least, 9 court days before the continued hearing date,
Defendant may file and serve a supplemental opposition brief, limited to 15 pages,
responding to Plaintiff’s supplemental brief along with a revised responsive
separate statement.