Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22PSCV01880, Date: 2023-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01880    Hearing Date: September 13, 2023    Dept: K

Background   

Plaintiffs Elmer Mata and Susy Ruiz (together, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:

On December 26, 2016, Plaintiffs entered into a warranty contract with General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) regarding a 2016 Buick Encore, VIN #KL4CJASB1GB737957 (“subject vehicle”). The subject vehicle suffers from exterior, electrical, engine, HVAC and interior defects which have not been adequately repaired.

On November 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Defendant and Does 1-10 for:

1.                  Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Express Warranty

A Case Management Conference is set for September 13, 2023.

Legal Standard

“[T]he demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that. . . (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[,] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive [and/or] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

The moving party must demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith attempt” at an informal resolution of each issue presented. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(3).)

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) If the moving party has shown good cause for the production of documents, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) 

Notice of the motion must be provided “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 demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.310, subd. (c).)

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction. . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Discussion

Plaintiffs move the court for an order compelling Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (i.e., Nos. 16, 19-32, 37-41, 45 and 46). Plaintiffs also seek monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,210.00 against Defendant and its counsel of record.

Plaintiffs’ counsel Phil Thomas (“Thomas”) represents, and the accompanying documents reflect, as follows:

On February 23, 2023, Plaintiffs propounded the subject discovery on Defendant. (Thomas Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. A.) On March 28, 2023, Defendant provided unverified responses thereto. (Id., ¶ 6, Exh. B.) On May 5, 2023, Defendant provided verifications. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. C.) On May 25, 2023, Thomas sent Defendant’s counsel a meet and confer letter, requesting therein that Defendant’s counsel provide a written response thereto by June 2, 2023. (Id., ¶ 10, Exh. D.) On May 31, 2023, Defendant’s counsel Cameron Major (“Major”) provided a response, requesting therein that Plaintiffs stipulate and enter into the LASC Model Protective Order. (Id., ¶ 11, Exh. E.) Major advised therein that, “[a]s this response explains further infra, GM is willing to supplement its document production pursuant to the stipulation and entry of the LASC Model Protective Order, allowing a reasonable production deadline.” (Id.) On May 31, 2023, Plaintiffs signed and served the LASC Model Protective Order. (Id., ¶ 14). Counsel thereafter exchanged further meet and confer correspondence on June 6, 2023 and June 12, 2023, respectively. (Id., ¶¶ 12 and 13, Exhs. F and G.) The instant motion was filed on June 26, 2023.

It is unclear to the court whether or not the parties agreed to extend the motion filing deadline. It would appear to the court that the motion should have been filed by June 21, 2023 (i.e., with the deadline commencing when the verifications were served via email on May 5, 2023). The 45-day limitation is “jurisdictional “in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Additionally, Thomas indicates that Plaintiffs executed and returned the LASC Model Protective Order on May 31, 2023 (see Thomas Decl., ¶ 14)[1] and Major’s June 12, 2023 correspondence thanks Thomas “for signing the Protective Order” (Id., ¶ 13, Exh. G). Major, in that same letter, advised that “GM will supplement its production, as described below, after entry of the Protective Order, allowing a reasonable production deadline.” (Id.) There is nothing on ecourt, however, suggesting that an executed LASC Model Protective Order was ever presented to the court for filing. Although unclear, there appears to be no follow-up by Thomas with respect to the filing status of the protective order subsequent to this communication and prior to the filing of the instant motion.

The court will hear further from counsel in this regard at the time of the hearing.