Judge Sarah J. Heidel, Case Number: 22GDCV00985, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 22GDCV00985, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCV00985 Hearing Date: May 9, 2024 Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT DEPARTMENT V

POOLED C. TCHANG, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

KIA AMERICA, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 22GDCV00985

Hearing Date: May 9, 2024 Time: 9:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiff POOLED C. TCHANG

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant KIA AMERICA, INC.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition and reply.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Pooled C. Tchang filed the complaint on December 9, 2022 alleging the following causes of action: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty; (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of implied warranty; and (3) violation of the Song[1]Beverly Act section 1793.2. Plaintiff purchased a 2021 Kia Sorento (subject vehicle) on December 24, 2020. Plaintiff alleges that the subject vehicle 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, engine, and transmission system defects.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses on January 24, 2024. Defendant filed the opposition on April 26, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

With respect to requests for production of documents there are three appropriate responses: (1) a statement that the party will comply with the request; (2) a statement of inability to comply; or (3) an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210(a).)

The requesting party may move for an order compelling further responses to request for production of documents if 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; or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).)

The motion must be filed within 45 days from verified responses, supplemental verified responses, or a specific later date agreed to in writing (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) Failure to make motion within the specified period constitutes waiver of right to compel a further response. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The time period is mandatory and jurisdictional in the sense that it renders the Court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them. (Id.)

The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(2).) The purpose of the meet and confer requirement is to encourage the parties to make serious effort to work out differences informally and avoid a need for a formal order. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1016.)

Under Rule of Court 3.1345, the movant must submit a separate statement along with the motion to compel further responses. The movant must include specific facts showing good cause justifying further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).)

DISCUSSION

A. Timeliness

Defendant served unverified responses to plaintiff’s request for production set one on March 10, 2023. Plaintiff filed the instant motion on January 24, 2024. Because defendant served unverified responses, the clock did not start on the 45-day requirement. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(c), a party has 45-days to file a motion to compel further responses from the date verified responses were served. Defendant served the verification on plaintiff on January 26, 2024. (Decl. of Douglas Proudfoot, Exh. A.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s instant motion is timely.

B. Meet and Confer

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(b)(2), the parties are required to meet and confer prior to filing a motion to compel further responses and are required to file a declaration stating facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution. Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to defendant’s counsel on April 4, 2023 regarding the issues plaintiff had with defendant's responses to plaintiff’s requests for production (set one). (Decl. of Gregory Sogoyan, ¶ 19; Decl. of Douglas Proudfoot, ¶ 5.) On May 5, 2023, defendant’s counsel responded to plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer letter standing by its objections and claiming defendant’s responses were satisfactory. (Decl. of Gregory Sogoyan, ¶ 23; Decl. of Douglas Proudfoot, ¶ 6.) On June 8, 2023, plaintiff’s counsel sent a further meet and confer email to defendant’s counsel regarding defendant's responses. (Decl. of Douglas Proudfoot, ¶ 7.) On June 9, 2023, defendant responded to plaintiff’s counsel’s June 8 email addressing plaintiff’s issues and offering to discuss further via telephone. (Decl. of Douglas Proudfoot, ¶ 8.)

The court finds that plaintiff did not make a good faith effort to resolve the issues informally. While plaintiff’s counsel did communicate their issues regarding defendant’s responses to defense counsel, and defendant stood by their objections, the parties could have made a further effort to discuss the issues via telephone. Defendant’s counsel offered to discuss via telephone in the last email of June 9, 2023. Plaintiff had six months to make a good faith effort to attempt to resolve the issues, but no such effort was made.

C. Separate Statements

Under Rule of Court 3.1345 the movant must submit a separate statement along with the motion to compel further responses that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses at issue. The separate statement must include, in relevant part, “(1) The text of the request . . . ; (2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers; (3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute; (4) If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it . . .” (Rule of Court 3.1345(c).)

Here, plaintiff complied with this requirement in that he provided the text of each request, defendant’s response, and defendant’s objection. However, while plaintiff did include a “statement of insufficiency” next to each discovery request, Plaintiff merely copy and pasted similar, if not identical, language for each reason to compel further. Plaintiff merely includes stock language claiming the responses are insufficient and that Defendant’s objections are meritless and boilerplate.

Plaintiff’s separate statements fail to adequately establish a proper reason for this court to compel further responses as to the specific discovery request. Plaintiff merely lumps all requests together and fails to demonstrate why further responses should be ordered as to each matter specifically, and instead uses the same language to argue further responses should be compelled. Each statement of insufficiency uses language that does not adequately address the specifics of the discovery request or the response. Therefore, the plaintiff has not met this requirement.

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to plaintiff’s request for production of documents.