Judge Sarah J. Heidel, Case Number: 23GDCV02308, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23GDCV02308, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV02308 Hearing Date: April 25, 2024 Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT DEPARTMENT V VICTORIA SOLIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 23GDCV02308

Hearing Date: April 25, 2024
Time: 8:30 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF VICTORIA SOLIS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiff Victoria Solis

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Motion to Compel Further Responses To Plaintiff’s Request For Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 1 through 31

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

This is a Lemon Law case brought by Plaintiff Victoria Solis involving a 2020 Acura MDX, bearing VIN: 5J8YD4H37LL045552 (“Subject Vehicle”). On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed the complaint against Defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM”) and Colorado Development Corporation dba Acura of Glendale. The causes of action in the Complaint arise out of the warranty and repair obligations of AHM in connection with the Subject Vehicle for which AHM issued a written warranty. The warranty was not issued by the selling dealership. On or about December 20, 2023, Plaintiff propounded Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on AHM seeking documents relating to: (1) Plaintiff’s own vehicle (Request Nos. 1-14); (2) AHM’s written warranties and the policies and procedures related to what is covered under said warranties, how coverage is determined, training related to warranty coverage, how customer complaints are handled, and whether AHM abides by its duties under the Song-Beverly Act (Request Nos. 15-29); and (3) AHM’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle. (Request Nos. 30-31). On or about January 23, 2024, AHM responded to Plaintiff’s requests with objections. On March 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff´s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Request Nos. 1 through 31.

LEGAL STANDARD

In responding to a demand for production of documents, a party must either provide one of the following: (1) a legally adequate statement of compliance; (2) a statement of inability to comply; or (3) an objection to the particular demand. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).) If any objections are made, they must: (1) “[i]dentify with particularity any document … falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made”; and (2) “[s]et forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.” (Id., § 2031.240, subd. (b).) To prevail, a party moving for an order compelling further responses to a document production demand must first offer facts demonstrating “good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

DISCUSSION

Motions to compel further responses to written discovery must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040), setting forth facts evincing a “reasonable and good faith attempt an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) In support of the meet and confer requirement, Plaintiff’s counsel attaches two letters that purportedly attempted to meet and confer with AHM. (Derderian Decl. ¶ 19, Exh. 5.) Both letters are plainly boilerplate and fail to “state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) Even considering Defendant’s failure to respond the Plaintiff’s letters, it is evident from the attached letters that counsel made no serious “attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) For that reason alone, the court could deny the motion as procedurally defective. But here, the motion further fails because the separate statement provided with the motion to compel does not include “[a] statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers or production to each matter in dispute.” Indeed, Plaintiffs separate statement offers additional boilerplate without providing specific reasons to compel further responses based on each matter in dispute.

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES the Motion to Compel Further Responses To Plaintiff’s Request For Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 1 through 31. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.