Judge: Ralph C. Hofer, Case: 22GDCV00570, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22GDCV00570 Hearing Date: September 29, 2023 Dept: D
TENTATIVE RULING
Calendar: 1
Date: 9/29/2023
Case No: 22 GDCV00570 Trial Date: April 8, 2024
Case Name: Shamim v. Porsche Cars of North America, Inc.
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
DOCUMENT DEMANDS
Moving Party: Plaintiff Kian Shamim
Responding Party: Defendant Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 1 through 50
MONETARY SANCTION:
None sought
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:
Plaintiff Kian Shamim alleges that in August of 2020 plaintiff leased a 2020 Porsche 911 vehicle, and express warranties accompanied the lease of the vehicle, by which defendant Porsche Cars North America, Inc. undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the vehicle or provide compensation if there was a failure in such utility or performance.
Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle was delivered to plaintiff with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty, including electrical, steering, structural, and suspension system defects.
Plaintiff alleges that the defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the express warranty period, and substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the vehicle. Plaintiff delivered the vehicle to manufacturer’s authorized repair facility for repair of the nonconformities, and defendant has been unable to conform plaintiff’s vehicle to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts.
The complaint alleges three causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty, and Section 1793.2.
ANALYSIS:
This motion was originally heard on July 21, 2023.
The Court issued its tentative ruling via posting on LACourt.org website, which was to deny the motion without prejudice to permit the parties to comply with the Court’s Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (Song-Beverly Litigation) signed and entered by the Court on January 24, 2023.
At the hearing, the matter was continued to this date. The minute order states:
“Plaintiff's counsel is ordered to serve and file a supplemental declaration explaining the need for 50 documents by no later than 09/08/2023. Defense counsel is ordered to serve and file a response declaration explaining why there has not been compliance with the Requests for Production and the Court's standing order by 09/15/2023. Plaintiff is ordered to serve and file a reply declaration detailing what has been complied with and what remains outstanding by 09/18/2023.”
No supplemental declaration has been filed by plaintiff’s counsel.
On September 15, 2023, the parties submitted a Stipulation and Protective Order—Confidential Designation Only, which was signed and filed by the court the same date.
Also on September 15, 2023, counsel for defendant filed a Declaration Regarding What Documents Have Been Produced, indicating that additional production of documents was made available to plaintiff on September 13, 2023, pursuant to the parties’ execution of an agreed upon protective order, that plaintiff signed and returned the protective order on September 15, 2023, and the protective order was filed with the court. [Liss Decl., para. 5]. Counsel indicates that once the protective order is signed, “the document production will be made available to Plaintiff.” [Liss Decl., para. 5]. The declaration states:
“The additional production of documents includes the relevant TSB’s; the policies and procedures relating to warranty claims, refunds, and repurchases; and the sales contract for the Subject Vehicle. In addition, the internal policy and procedure documents related to how customer service representatives handle consumer complaints and/or requests will be produced pursuant to the stipulation and protective order.”
[Liss Decl., para. 6].
This document production appears to render the motion moot.
The Court will hear argument concerning whether any materials covered by the court’s Order are outstanding, and whether a verification was served with the documents produced.
Otherwise, the parties are ordered to engage in a good faith meet and confer concerning the documents produced and any gaps, in light of the Order, and the Court’s entry of the Stipulated Protective Order. If necessary, the motion may be rescheduled, and plaintiff must file new papers and an updated separate statement reflecting the then current status of this discovery dispute, which should also include verbatim any language from the court’s Order which pertains to a particular document demand.
RULING:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as MOOT in light of the production of responsive documents by defendant prior to the hearing on this matter.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith concerning compliance with this Court’s Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (Song-Beverly Litigation), signed and entered by the Court on January 24, 2023. e Order, and to serve any further discovery or discovery responses, and engage in any further discovery proceedings or motions in compliance with the Order and this Minute Order.
DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES
Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams offers free audio and video appearances. However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.
If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.
