Judge Sarah J. Heidel, Case Number: 23GDCV01474, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23GDCV01474, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV01474 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

JOSUE ANTONIO WHITHAM, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

KIA AMERICA, INC., a California Corporation; FIRST MOTOR GROUP OF LOS ANGELES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company d/b/a KIA DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23GDCV01474
Hearing Date: July 12, 2024
Time: 8:30 a.m.

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

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiff JOSUE ANTONIO WHITHAM

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants KIA AMERICA, INC. and FIRST MOTOR GROUP OF LOS ANGELES, LLC d/b/a KIA DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On July 17, 2023, plaintiff Josue Antonio Whitham (plaintiff) filed the complaint against defendants Kia America, Inc. and First Motor Group of Los Angeles, LLC d/b/a Kia Downtown Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty against defendant Kia America, Inc.; (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of implied warranty against defendant Kia America, Inc.; (3) violation of the Song-

Beverly Act section 1793.2 against defendant Kia America, Inc.; and (4) negligent repair against defendant Kia Downtown Los Angeles.

Plaintiff alleges that on May 22, 2022, plaintiff purchased a 2021 Kia Seltos (subject vehicle) that 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 suspension, transmission, and electrical system defects.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on December 15, 2023. Defendant Kia America, Inc. (defendant) filed its opposition on June 28, 2024. Plaintiff filed its reply on July 3, 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 responses, or a specific later date agreed to in writing (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) Failure to make a 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. (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

Plaintiff served unverified responses to defendants on October 31, 2023. Defendant served verifications on December 20, 2023. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 subdivision (c), the time limit for bringing a motion to compel further responses runs from the service of a verified response, unless the parties have agreed in writing to a later date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) Plaintiff filed the instant motion on December 15, 2023. Accordingly, plaintiff’s 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 regarding defendant’s initial responses, and its deficiencies, on November 3, 2023, to which it received no response. (Decl. of Gregory Sogoyan, Esq., ¶ 16.) Plaintiff’s counsel sent a follow up meet and confer letter on November 13, 2023, explaining that the documents sought in the request are relevant and probative. (Decl. of Gregory Sogoyan, Esq., ¶ 17.) Defendant’s counsel responded on November 20, 2023, standing by its objections and seeking to limit discovery to only the

subject vehicle. (Decl. of Gregory Sogoyan, Esq., ¶ 21.) Based on defense counsel’s response to the meet and confer letter, and prior dealings with defendant, plaintiff’s counsel believes further meet and confer efforts will not be fruitful. (Decl. of Gregory Sogoyan, Esq., ¶ 23.) The court finds plaintiff satisfied the meet and confer requirement by trying to reach an informal resolution.

C. Separate Statement

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 it provided the text of each request, plaintiff’s response, and plaintiff’s objection. However, while defendants did include a statement detailing “Reasons to Compel Further Response and Production” next to each discovery request, plaintiff merely copy and pasted a statement stating “Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Reasons to Compel set forth under RFP No. [1, 15, or 30 interchangeably], supra.” This practice of copy-pasting this statement for each RFP does not adequately address the specifics of the discovery request or the response.

The motion is accordingly denied.