Judge Sarah J. Heidel, Case Number: 23BBCV01700, Date: 2024-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23BBCV01700, Date: 2024-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01700 Hearing Date: May 14, 2024 Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT DEPARTMENT V

SONIA BARAHONA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants. Case No.: 23BBCV01700

Hearing Date: May 14, 2024

Time: 9:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQEUSTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiff

SONIA BARAHONA RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition and reply.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Sonia Barahona filed the complaint on June 26, 2023, against defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) violation of subdivision (d) of Civil Code section 179.2; (2) violation of subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1793.2; (3) violation of subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code section 1739.2; and (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiff alleges that on or about August 14, 2020, plaintiff purchased a 2020 Toyota C-HR (subject vehicle). Plaintiff alleges the subject vehicle had defects and nonconformities that substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the subject vehicle.Plaintiff filed the instant motion on March 4, 2024. Defendant filed its opposition on April 18, 2024. Plaintiff filed her reply on April 24, 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 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 electronically served verified responses to plaintiff on January 17, 2024. (Decl. of Rosario Stoliker, ¶ 23, Exh. 6.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 subdivision (c), plaintiffs had 45 days, plus two court days for electronic service, to file the motion to compel further responses. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses was filed on March 4, 2024, and 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 regarding defendant’s responses on February 5, 2024 and defendant did not respond. (Decl. of Rosario Stoliker, ¶ 28, Exh. 8.) On March 4, 2024, at 11:29 a.m. plaintiff’s counsel emailed defendant’s counsel saying given defendant’s counsel failure to respond to meet and confer, plaintiff will be seeking court intervention. (Decl. of Rosario Stoliker, ¶ 28, Exh. 10; Decl. of Sharon L. Stewart, ¶ 7.) On March 4, 2024, at 11:40 a.m. defendant’s counsel replied to plaintiff’s counsel’s email explaining the oversight and offered to respond to plaintiff's meet and confer letter by March 15, 2024, and to extend plaintiff's motion to compel deadline to March 29, 2024; however, plaintiff did not respond. (Decl. of Sharon L. Stewart, ¶ 9.) Defendant’s counsel sent a follow-up email on that same day at 4:13 p.m. confirming if plaintiff’s counsel was agreeable to the proposed deadline extension, but plaintiff did not respond to that email either. (Decl. of Sharon L. Stewart, ¶ 10, 11.)

The court finds that plaintiff’s counsel did not satisfy the requirement to make a good faith effort to meet and confer with defendant’s counsel. Plaintiff only sent one meet and confer letter and never attempted to follow up by email or telephone. Furthermore, when defendant offered to extend the motion to compel deadline so the parties could meaningfully meet and confer and attempt to informally resolve the issues, plaintiff did not reply and instead filed the instant motion.

Based on the foregoing, the court CONTINUES the motion to compel further responses to ______________.

The court orders the parties to meet and confer. The parties are ordered to file a joint stipulation setting forth the discovery that is still at issue after their meet and confer efforts.