Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV17806, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17806    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion to Compel Written Responses to Demand for Inspection and Copy Set One [and] Request for Sanctions

 

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Francisco Carrillo Rivera

Resp. Party:    Defendant General Motors LLC

 

SUBJECT:         Motion to Deem the Truth of All Matters Specified in Plaintiffs [sic] Request for Admission Set One, Admitted [and] Request for Sanctions

 

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Francisco Carrillo Rivera

Resp. Party:    Defendant General Motors LLC

 

 

Plaintiff’s RFAs Motion and RPDs Motion are DENIED without prejudice.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff Francisco Carrillo Rivera filed his Complaint against Defendant General motors LLC on causes of action arising from issues with Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was manufactured by Defendant.

 

On July 25, 20222, Defendant filed its Answer.

 

On December 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed:

 

(1)       Motion to Compel Written Responses to Demand for Inspection and Copy Set One [and] Request for Sanctions (“RPDs Motion”); and

 

(2)       Motion to Deem the Truth of All Matters Specified in Plaintiffs [sic] Request for Admission Set One, Admitted [and] Request for Sanctions (“RFAs Motion”).

 

Plaintiff concurrently filed a Proposed Order with each of the motions.

 

        On February 7, 2023, Defendant filed its Opposition to the RFAs Motion. Defendant concurrently filed Declaration of Darshnik Brar.

 

On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed Declaration of Nadia Yashar in Reply to the RFAs Motion.

 

On February 16, 2023, Defendant filed its Opposition to the RPDs Motion.

 

No reply or other response has been made to the RPDs Motion.

 

ANALYSIS:

 

I.           Discussion

 

This Court’s Trial Orders require that Counsel attend an informal discovery conference before any discovery motion will be heard in a Lemon Law case. (See Court’s Trial Orders, § VIII.) The parties have failed to schedule an Informal Discovery Conference regarding the RFAs Motion or the RPDs Motion.

 

The Court DENIES without prejudice these motions because the Parties have not participated in an Informal Discovery Conference.

 

II.        Conclusion

 

Plaintiff’s RFAs Motion and RPDs Motion are DENIED without prejudice.