Judge Nathan Vu, Case 30-2022-01245236 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 30-2022-01245236, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Please Note: The hearing on this matter has been changed to 8:30 A.M.

Motions to Compel

The hearing on Plaintiff Jose Ochoa’s motions to compel form interrogatories (set one) and special interrogatories (set one) is CONTINUED to 01/23/2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department N15.

Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to submit a complete meet and confer letter that includes Plaintiff’s position with respect to every interrogatory that is the subject of these motions to compel and which Plaintiff still disputes, within 10 days of the date of this ruling.

Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel are ORDERED to engage in an in-person, video, or telephonic conference within 14 days of the date Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter is sent to Defendant’s counsel.

The parties are ORDERED to file a joint statement as to the remaining disputes, if any, from the motions to compel by 12/16/2022.

The joint statement shall include a summary of the parties’ meet and confer efforts and a list of each interrogatory still in dispute, with a brief statement of each party’s position on the interrogatory.

No further briefing, except for the joint statement, shall be filed.

Plaintiff Jose Ochoa moves to compel Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. to provide further responses to form interrogatories numbers 1.1 and 15.1 and special interrogatories numbers 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 23, 43, and 44.

Compelling Further Responses to Interrogatories

A party may move for an order compelling further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that: (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Civil Proc. Code, § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Meet and Confer

The motion to compel must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing “a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2016.040, 2025.480(b).) The Civil Discovery Act requires a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution – counsel must “attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult and deliberate.” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294; see Townsend v. Superior Ct. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1433 [informal resolution requirement not fulfilled by bickering between counsel during deposition].)

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 . . . . This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016, quotations and citations omitted.)

Further, the motion to compel must be filed and served “within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any supplement verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have greed in writing.” (Civil Proc. Code, § 2030.300, subd. (c).)

In this case, Defendant served its responses by electronic mail on 05/09/2022. Thus, the meet and confer had to be completed and the motion to compel had to be served by 06/27/2022 (45 days plus 2 days for electronic mail service after 05/09/2022).

Plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond to Defendant’s interrogatory responses for 44 days and did not send a letter to Defendant’s counsel until 06/22/2022, 5 days before the deadline.

Even then, the letter admitted that, “Our firm has not yet completed a full review of Defendants’ responses for a detailed meet and confer letter.” (Urner Decl., Exh. C.) The letter failed to address the bulk of the special interrogatories at issue – special interrogatories numbers 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 19, 21, 23, 43, and 44 – and did not address Defendant’s objections that the information sought was irrelevant pursuant to Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209.

Plaintiff’s letter also requested a 60-day extension to bring the motion to compel, which Defendant granted. (Urner Decl., Exh. C.) There is no indication that Plaintiff ever met and conferred in an effort to address the remaining special interrogatories or the objections based upon Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209.

The effort to meet and confer by Plaintiff was deficient in this case. Plaintiff is informed that in the future, if meet and confer efforts are similarly deficient, the court may deny a motion to compel and sanction the party bringing the motion.

The court will continue the hearing on the motions to compel to allow the parties to properly meet and confer regarding every interrogatory that is the subject of these motions to compel and which Plaintiff still disputes. The parties shall then file a joint statement describing their meet and confer efforts and the remaining discovery disputes.

In meeting and conferring, the parties shall give serious consideration to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209. In granting the petition for review of Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that parties may continue to cite to the opinion of the Court of Appeal in that case and that trial courts retained the discretion to follow or not follow the ruling. (Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 512 P.3d 654, citing Standing Order Exercising Authority Under California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(e)(3), Upon Grant of Review or Transfer of a Matter with an Underlying Published Court of Appeal Opinion, Administrative Order 2021-04-21; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(3) and corresponding Comment, par. 2.)

The parties are also reminded that the Civil Procedure Code requires the court to impose monetary sanctions against a party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses. (See Civil Proc. Code, § 2030.300, subd. (d).) The court will thus be granting substantial sanctions, “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Ibid.)

Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.