Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV20026, Date: 2025-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV20026    Hearing Date: February 7, 2025    Dept: 47

Final Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     February 7, 2025                   TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Inah M. Green v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

CASE NO.:                 24STCV20026           

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE)

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Inah M. Green

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant American Honda Motor Co.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a lemon law action filed on August 8, 2024, concerning a 2022 Honda Pilot which Plaintiff alleges developed numerous deficiencies in the transmission and infotainment systems.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production propounded to Defendant.

FINAL RULING:

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to 55 requests for production out of 145 requests propounded to Defendant.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(b), a party who moves to compel further responses to requests for production must demonstrate that the parties made a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to informally resolve the issues presented in the motion. Here, however, the papers filed by both parties demonstrate that the meet-and-confer efforts undertaken were wholly insufficient. Counsel for Plaintiff states that Plaintiff sent a single letter on December 9, 2024, outlining the issues with 55 of Defendant’s responses to requests for production, with a follow-up email on January 13, 2025, as to which there was no response received from Defendant. (Declaration of Anita J. Marks ISO Mot. ¶ 26; Exhs. 7, 9.) Defendant’s opposition provides further information, stating that the parties conducted a telephonic discussion regarding this discovery on December 16, 2024. (Declaration of Nicholas Maugeri ISO Opp. ¶ 9.) Those discussions ended with a promise by Plaintiff’s counsel to confer with her colleagues regarding the acceptability and extent of supplemental document production by Defendant. (Id.) However, instead of following up, Plaintiff brought this motion. (Id. ¶ 10; Exh. E.)

On this record and given the voluminous nature of the requests for production at issue, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer with Defendant before bringing this motion. The Court will therefore continue this matter and order the parties to engage in further meet and confer efforts in person, via telephone, or by video conference, and to submit a joint statement describing the issues which are resolved and which remain outstanding. In making this order, the Court expressly instructs the parties to engage in a reasonable, good faith effort to resolve this dispute using negotiation by telephone or video conference or in person and discussing proposed compromises. Merely restating each party’s respective position on the issues—as litigants are often wont to do in Song-Beverly actions—is not a good-faith effort and will not be looked upon kindly by the Court.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is therefore CONTINUED to Monday, March 10, 2025 at 1:30 PM.

Counsel for the parties are instructed to further confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference to informally resolve as much of this dispute as practicable. The parties are also ordered to file a joint statement describing what issues have been resolved, what issues remain to be resolved, and the parties’ respective positions on or before Friday, February 28, 2025.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  February 7, 2025                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court