Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV03410, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03410    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: 39

Oscar Veronica Sotelo, et al. v. Camino Real Chevrolet, et al.

Case No. 22STCV03410

Motion to Compel

            Plaintiffs filed this case against Defendants under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act on January 27, 2022.  On October 21, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the deposition of Defendants’ person most qualified, which they noticed for hearing on January 31, 2022.  In the interim, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the production of certain documents.  The Court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part on December 13, 2022.  The Court issued a detailed order concerning what documents were relevant to this case. 

            Following the Court’s order, Plaintiffs’ counsel did not attempt to meet-and-confer with Defendants’ counsel to resolve this motion.  (See Declaration of Cameron Major, ¶ 7.)  Nor did Plaintiffs’ counsel file a notice narrowing the focus of the motion in light of the Court’s ruling on December 13, 2022.  Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel continued to litigate this motion.  The Court is concerned because its order of December 13, 2022, was clear, and Defendants’ counsel has agreed to produce a witness with respect to the vast majority of the remaining categories.  The only categories truly in dispute are Category #23 through Category #25.  Plaintiffs’ counsel should have met-and-conferred with Defendants’ counsel and then filed an amended notice narrowing the focus of this motion.  By failing to do so, Plaintiffs’ counsel has not been mindful of the Court’s limited resources. 

            Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.  The Court rules as follows:

            1.         To the extent Plaintiffs seek a witness from Defendant to testify about documents, Defendant need only produce a witness to testify about the documents referenced in the Court’s minute order of December 13, 2022.  This applies to Category #1, Category #19, and Category #22.

            2.         The motion is denied with respect to Category #22 through Category #25 because the requests are overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable material.

            3.         The motion is denied with respect to the remaining categories between Category #1 through Category #25 because Defendants have agreed to produce a witness to those categories.

            4.         With respect to the document categories, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.  Defendants shall comply with the order of December 13, 2022.  Defendants need not produce any additional documents.  The Court admonishes Plaintiffs’ counsel that they may not seek to circumvent the Court’s order on a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents by seeking additional documents in connection with the deposition of the auto manufacturers’ person most qualified.        

            5.         The Court finds that this motion was unnecessary, the result of Plaintiffs’ counsel not sufficiently attempting to resolve the issue with Defendants’ counsel.  The Court is troubled that the motion was litigated when the Court’s prior order was clear, and Defendants agreed to provide a witness on the vast majority of categories.  This motion should have been narrowed to only Category #23 through Category #25, which were the only remaining issues.  Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel is not entitled to attorney’s fees for this motion and any related proceedings if they are the prevailing party in this litigation.   

            6.         The Court grants Defendants’ request for sanctions and orders Plaintiffs to pay Defendants fees and costs relating to this motion.  If necessary, Defendants may file their own motion for attorney’s fees for these fees/costs following the conclusion of the case.

            7.         The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.