Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 21STCV45543, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV45543, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45543 Hearing Date: August 28, 2023 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: August 28, 2023 TRIAL DATE: November 7, 2023

CASE: Patrick L. Rendón v. Comenity Bank, et al.

CASE NO.: 21STCV45543

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET SIX); REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Patrick L. Rendón

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Comenity Bank

CASE HISTORY:

· 12/13/21: Complaint filed.

· 07/17/23: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for negligence and violation of the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (Set Six) propounded to Defendant Comenity Bank, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is CONTINUED to Wednesday, September 20, 2023, at 1:30 PM. Plaintiff is directed to meet and confer with Defendant either in person or telephonically to attempt to informally resolve this matter. The parties are ordered to file a joint statement no later than September 15, 2023 detailing the results of their efforts and what issues remain outstanding.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production (Set Six) Nos. 58, 62-68, 71, 72, 77, 80, and 81 propounded to Defendant Comenity Bank..

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to a demand for inspection when the court finds that: “(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.”

The burden is on the moving party to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) These facts must also be set forth in a separate statement filed by the moving party. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c).) 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.)

Timeliness

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production must be served “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).) The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Defendant’s supplemental responses at issue in this motion were served on June 21, 2023. (Declaration of Tomohiro Kagami ISO Mot. ¶ 7.) This motion was filed 37 days later, on July 28, 2023. This motion is therefore timely filed.

Meet and Confer

A party making a motion to compel further responses must also include a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

The Declaration of Tomohiro Kagami in support of this motion states that the parties met and conferred extensively before Defendant provided supplemental responses, beginning on June 7, 2023. (Kagami Decl. ¶¶2-4.) However, Plaintiff provides no indication of any attempt to meet and confer regarding the sufficiency of the responses which were subsequently served on June 21, 2023. (See Kagami Decl. ¶ 7.) As the subject of the motion is whether those responses were adequate, Plaintiff has utterly failed to adequately meet and confer with Defendant pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure.

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to adequately meet and confer with Defendant to informally resolve this issue, the Court declines to rule on the merits of the motion at this time. Instead, the Court will continue this matter to September 20, 2023, to coincide with the other pending Motion to Compel Further Responses in this matter and order the parties to meet and confer in person or telephonically to attempt an informal resolution of this matter. The parties are also instructed to file a joint statement detailing the results of their meet and confer efforts and explaining what issues remain for the Court.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is CONTINUED to Wednesday, September 20, 2023, at 1:30 PM. Plaintiff is directed to meet and confer with Defendant either in person or telephonically to attempt to informally resolve this matter. The parties are ordered to file a joint statement no later than September 15, 2023 detailing the results of their efforts and what issues remain outstanding.

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2023 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.