Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV08763, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08763    Hearing Date: December 5, 2022    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     December 5, 2022                  TRIAL DATE: August 22, 2023

CASE:                         Sandra Torres v. Kia America, Inc.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV08763           

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE)

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Sandra Torres

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Kia America, Inc.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a lemon law action filed on March 10, 2022. Plaintiffs leased a new 2021 Kia K5 which Plaintiff alleges was delivered with serious defects including engine and electrical system defects.

            Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to certain requests in Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production (Set One).

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set One) is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

            Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 3, 5, 9, 16-18, 22, 24, and 29-37.

Legal Standards

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.)

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 Sarah Pfeffer states that Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to meet and confer both by email and telephone with Defense counsel, between September 14 and and September 26, 2022, but was ultimately unsuccessful. (Declaration of Sarah Pfeffer ISO Mot. ¶¶ 28-33.) Plaintiff has therefore complied with the statutory meet and confer requirements.

Timeliness

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories 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 served its responses on September 14, 2022. (Pfeffer Decl. ¶ 25, Exh. 9.) 45 days from that date was October 29, 2022, a Saturday. The deadline to file this motion was therefore extended to October 31, 2022. This motion was filed and served on November 1, 2022, one day later. The motion is therefore untimely, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this motion under Sexton v. Superior Court. (58 Cal.App.4th at 1403.)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is DENIED.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2022                               ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.