Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 24GDCV00345, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24GDCV00345    Hearing Date: December 5, 2024    Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

JOSE H. NAUPARI VELEZ, an individual, and JESUS J. NAUPARI RODRIGUEZ, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

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

 Defendants.

Case No.: 24GDCV00345

Hearing Date: December 5, 2024

Time: 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs JOSE H. NAUPARI VELEZ and JESUS J. NAUPARI RODRIGUEZ

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant KIA AMERICA, INC.

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

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law case. Plaintiffs Jose H. Naupari Velez and Jesus J. Naupari Rodriguez filed the complaint against defendant Kia America, Inc. on February 23, 2023. Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warrant; (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of implied warranty; and (3) violation of Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2. Plaintiffs allege that on July 1, 2022, they purchased a 2023 Kia Sportage (subject vehicle). Plaintiffs allege that the subject vehicle was delivered to or developed serious defects and nonconformities to warranty to the electrical, transmission, engine and emission systems. These issues include abnormal noise while operating the HVAC system and a “Check hybrid system” message.

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 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 responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two on September 9, 2024, consisting of objections. (Jung Decl., ¶ 14; Exh. 4.) 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) Because the responses consisted only of objections, verifications are not necessary. Since plaintiffs filed this motion on October 15, 2024, this motion is timely.

B. Meet and Confer

Plaintiffs’ counsel states that on October 2, 2024, plaintiffs’ counsel sent defendant’s counsel a letter attempting to meet and confer in good faith regarding the responses. (Jung Decl., ¶ 16; Exh. 5.) 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(2).) Defendant’s counsel states that defendant failed to prepare its responses to plaintiffs’ requests during settlement discussions and requested an extension to its responses to provide verified substantive responses, but plaintiffs failed to respond to the extension request. (Chang Decl., ¶ 6.) The court finds that sending one letter via email does not constitute a good faith effort to meet and confer. Accordingly, the court orders the parties to meet and confer.

Based on the foregoing, the court CONTINUES the motion to February 3, 2025 at 8:30 a.m., to allow the parties to meet and confer. The court orders the parties to file an updated joint statement five days prior to the next hearing addressing any remaining issues.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.