Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 21STCV32367 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV32367, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 21STCV32367 Hearing Date: August 9, 2022 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One)

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Santos Puac and Viviana Ibarra

Resp. Party: Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (“Nissan”)

SUBJECT: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One)

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Santos Puac and Viviana Ibarra

Resp. Party: Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (“Nissan”)

The motions to compel further discovery responses are taken OFF CALENDAR. The Court orders the parties to attend an IDC prior to ruling on these motions. (See Department 34 Trial Orders, part VII(B).) The Court orders the parties contact Department 34’s judicial assistant, Reyna Navarro, at (213) 633-0154 to schedule this informal discovery conference.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 1, 2021, Plaintiffs Santos Puac and Viviana Ibarra filed a complaint against Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. alleging the following causes of action:

1. Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act—Breach of Express Warranty;

2. Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act—Breach of Implied Warranty;

3. Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act—Civil Code § 1793.2(b)

On July 15, 2022, Plaintiffs Santos Puac and Viviana Ibarra moved the Court “for an order to strike Defendant NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’s (“Defendants”) objections and compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One), Nos. 25, 26, 39, 41 and 43.” (MTCF (SRogs), p. 2:4-6.)

On July 15, 2022, Plaintiffs Santos Puac and Viviana Ibarra moved the Court “for an order to strike Defendant NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’s (“Defendants”) objections and compel further responses and production of documents to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) numbers 3-9, 10-12, 15, 16-17, 20, 22, 23-26, 28-29, 33, 37-39 and 37-63.” (MTCF (RPD), p. 2:4-7.)

On July 27, 2022, Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. opposed Plaintiffs motion to compel Nissan’s further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One).

On July 27, 2022, Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. opposed Plaintiffs motion to compel Nissan’s further responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One).

On August 2, 2022, Plaintiffs replied to Nissan’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Nissan’s further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One).

On August 2, 2022, Plaintiffs replied to Nissan’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Nissan’s further responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One).

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Motions to compel further responses to discovery requests must always be accompanied by a meet-and confer-declaration (CCP § 2016.040) demonstrating a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion. (Id., §§ 2030.300(b), 2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b).) They must also be accompanied by a separate statement containing the requests and the responses, verbatim, as well as reasons why a further response is warranted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) The separate statement must also be complete in itself; no extrinsic materials may be incorporated by reference. (Id., rule 3.1345(c).) "In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute." (CCP § 2030.300.)

“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (CCP § 2030.300(c).) Any motion to compel further must be filed within 45 days from responses, supplemental responses, or a specific later date agreed to in writing. (CCP §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), 2033.290(c).) Failure to file the motion within the specified period constitutes a waiver of the right to compel a further response. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The time period is mandatory and jurisdictional in the sense that it renders the Court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them. (Id.)

A motion to compel further responses to form or specially prepared interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (CCP, § 2030.300(a).)

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).) “To establish ‘good cause,’ the burden is on the moving party to show both: [¶] Relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and [¶] Specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial.) [Citations.] [¶] The fact that there is no alternative source for the information sought is an important factor in establishing ‘good cause’ for inspection. But it is not essential in every case.” (Edmon & Karnow, California Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) ¶ 8:1495.6.)

“For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation.] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation.] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

“If ‘good cause’ is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure (the same as on motions to compel answers to interrogatories or deposition questions).” (Edmon & Karnow, supra, at ¶ 8:1496.)

B. Discussion

Department 34 Trial Orders, part VII(B) states:

"Counsel (or self-represented parties) must attend an informal discovery conference (see supra, ¶ V) before any discovery motion will be heard in a Lemon Law case. (CCP § 2016.080.)

The Court finds that it would be beneficial for the parties to raise the issues present in these motions at an informal discovery conference with the Court in an attempt to resolve these issues.

III. CONCLUSION