Judge: Ronald F. Frazier, Case: 37-2022-00011400-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 31, 2023

09/01/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Ronald F. Frazier

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00011400-CU-BC-CTL HERNANDEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 02/16/2023

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses and Documents to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED IN PART. As to Request Nos. 32 and 42, the court will hear this matter. (ROA 33.) At the outset, Defendant accuses Plaintiff of failing to meet and confer in good faith. However, all counsel admit they exchanged multiple letters regarding the substance of this motion before it was filed.

(Zhang Decl. at ¶¶ 12-19, 23 and Exh. 6-12; Pappas Decl. at ¶¶ 5-7 and 9-10.) Both counsel participated in an informal discovery conference before this motion was filed as well. (ROA 26.) The court indicated counsel should meet in person or 'at a minimum virtually' to attempt to resolve this dispute before the motion was filed. (Ibid.) Given the apparent continued breakdown of communications between the attorneys, Plaintiff's and Defendant's counsel are ordered to meet and confer in person or by video conference before any further discovery motions are filed or heard in this action.

As to Request Nos. 16, 19-21, the motion is granted. The court orders Request No. 19 limited to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle, consistent with the other requests.

As to Request Nos. 32 and 42, Defendant now indicates in its opposition it is willing to produce the documents subject to a protective order. According to Plaintiff's counsel, she signed the stipulated protective order proposed by Defendant many months ago. (Zhang Decl. ¶ 16.) However, the court notes no stipulated protective order has been filed. The court will hear from counsel as to the status of the stipulated protective order.

Plaintiff's evidentiary objections to Defendant's counsel's declaration are improper and should not have been filed. Discovery motions are not dispositive motions. The court is not aware of any law authorizing the use of evidentiary objections on a discovery motion, nor is there any practical reason for their use in this context. Unauthorized briefing and efforts to circumvent page limits are not well-taken by this court.

(Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1113(d), (g).) The court declines to consider the objections.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2939250  1