Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV33452, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33452    Hearing Date: January 14, 2025    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On October 13, 2022, Plaintiffs Saerom Ha and Jason Ha filed this action against Defendants BMW of North America LLC and Century West LLC dba Century West BMW.

On August 2, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production.

A party may move to compel a further response to a demand for production of documents if the demanding party deems that the statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or an objection in the response is without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)  The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

For a motion to compel further, the moving party must meet and confer with the opposing party and file a Separate Statement or follow the Court’s alternative method of outlining the disputes.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).)  This Department requires the parties to follow the procedures outlined in Exhibit A of Department 48’s Courtroom Information (available on the Court’s website, www.lacourt.org) and file a joint statement.

Plaintiffs filed only a Notice of Motion and a Joint Discovery Dispute Statement.  The motion is “based upon this notice, the attached joint statement, and the records and files in this action.”  Plaintiffs did not file the required declaration showing efforts to meet and confer, and Plaintiffs did not include full copies of Defendants’ responses as an exhibit.  The Court cannot determine with certainty when the discovery was served, when Defendants provided responses and supplemental responses, any efforts to meet and confer, or if this motion was timely filed.

Moreover, the Joint Statement does not demonstrate good cause to compel further responses to the discovery sought.  Defendants’ supplemental responses include that Defendant will produce the documents or, “[a]fter diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party does not have any relevant and non-privileged documents currently in its possession, custody or control.”  Many of Defendants’ opposition statements explain, “Pursuant to meet and confer, Responding Party supplemented as stated.  The asserted privilege objections were asserted to the extent the Request was seeking such documents.  Notwithstanding, Responding Party is not withholding any documents based on privilege.  Responding Party simply does not have documents responsive to this Request.”  Plaintiffs’ Joint Statement does not show good cause to compel further responses.

The motion to compel further responses is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 14th day of January 2025