Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 22CHCV00443, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00443    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51

Date: 12/7/22

Case #22CHCV00443

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

(Request for Production of Documents, Set One)

Motion filed on 10/12/22.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Nissan North America, Inc., a Delaware corporation

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Hugo A. Rivera, an individual

NOTICE: ok 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, and responsive documents, within ten (10) days of the Court’s order.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is moot.

The parties are reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil.¿When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly bookmarking declarations and exhibits). (CRC 3.1110(f)(4).) Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.¿¿¿ 

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of Plaintiff’s 9/17/21 purchase of a new vehicle, under warranty by Defendant, which Plaintiff alleges “was delivered to Plaintiff with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to, electrical, structural, transmission, and engine system defects.” (Compl. ¶ 10.)

On 6/16/22, Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendant, alleging three causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code § 1790 et seq., the “Lemon Law”) for: (1) Breach of Express Warranty; (2) Breach of Implied Warranty; and (3) Breach of Civil Code section 1793.2(b). On 7/18/22, Defendant filed its answer.

On 8/18/22, Defendant served Plaintiff with its first set of Requests for Production, seeking the production of “the sales or lease agreement for the vehicle which is the subject to this action.” (Exhibit 1 to Decl. of Ryan K. Marden.) On 9/16/22, Plaintiff served his responses and objections. (Exhibit 2 to Marden Decl.)

On 10/12/22, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, and responsive documents. On 11/22/22, Plaintiff filed his reply.

ANALYSIS

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

A motion to compel further discovery responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration stating “facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.310, subd. (b)(2); 2016.040.) On 9/20/22, Defendant’s attorney’s sent Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter on 9/20/22. (Exhibit 3 to Marden Decl.) Therefore, the meet and confer requirement under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (b)(2) has meet satisfied.

Here, Defendant argues that its document requests to Plaintiff requested only “the sales or lease agreement for the vehicle which is the subject to this action,” to which Plaintiff unreasonably objected and refused in its unverified response. (Marden Decl., ¶ 2; Def.’s Mot. to Compel, 6:3–8.) Plaintiff argues in opposition that on 11/22/22, he served Defendant with supplemental responses, and produced a copy of the sales agreement. (Exhibit 1 to Decl. of Allen Amarkarian.) Defendant has not filed any reply to date. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s responsive document production satisfactorily renders the instant motion to compel moot.

CONCLUSION

The motion is moot.