Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV07396, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07396    Hearing Date: July 18, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On November 1, 2023, Plaintiff Cristian Valdivia filed a motion to compel further responses to Request For Production, Set One from Defendant General Motors LLC.

A.        Plaintiff Did Not Comply With This Department’s Procedures.

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.

Plaintiff did not comply with these requirements.  Instead, Plaintiff filed a 21-page motion, 75-page separate statement, and 107-page declaration with exhibits (most of which are irrelevant).

B.        Plaintiff Did Not Act Diligently, Meaningfully Meet and Confer, or Show Good Cause.

A motion to compel further production of documents must include a meet and confer declaration.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)  The meet and confer declaration must “state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

Defendant provided responses on July 24, 2023, which Plaintiff deemed insufficient.  (Ryu Decl. ¶ 21.)  On September 6, 2023, Plaintiff “attempted to meet and confer with Defendant by sending a detailed letter which outlined Defendant’s bad faith litigation antics, Defendant’s violations of the Civil Discovery Act, and why Plaintiff requires the requested documents to ready the case for trial.”  (Ryu Decl. ¶ 23.)  According to Plaintiff’s counsel, they “attempt[ed] to reach Defendant’s counsel by telephone on at least 5 occasions from July through October of 2023.”  (Ryu Decl. ¶ 25.)  According to Defendant, “Plaintiff never attempted to contact Defendant by telephone in order to have a substantive conversation about their objections.”  (Pappas Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff’s counsel contends that they have “made diligent efforts on behalf of Plaintiff to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel.”  (Ryu Decl. ¶ 27.)

The Court disagrees that this demonstrates a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve the issues.  Plaintiff’s September 6, 2023 letter stated, “For the reasons stated above and below, we request that you provide fully code-compliant, responses and further documents within 2 days of the date of this letter.”  This demand for full production—within only two days—is not a good faith attempt to resolve Defendant’s objections.  Instead, the letter merely declares all objections meritless.  According to Defendant, “it is the same pro forma letter that Plaintiff’s counsel recycles in every breach of warranty matter against GM after GM has served its responses to Plaintiff’s counsel’s standard requests for production, which are the exact same in every case.”  (Pappas Decl. ¶ 5.)  The failure to sufficiently meet and confer is also demonstrated by Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Department 48’s procedures for submission of a joint, not separate, statement.

Although Plaintiff’s motion is technically timely (see Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a)), Plaintiff did not act diligently in seeking to compel further responses to discovery that was due one year ago—especially when this discovery is the first set of document production.  The Final Status Conference is scheduled for only four days after this motion is heard, and trial is scheduled for August 5, 2024.  With these looming deadlines, it is remarkable that Plaintiff did not further discuss the issues with Defendant.

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s boilerplate and repetitive separate statement does not set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); see Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224 [“To establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.”].)

For these reasons, the motion to compel further 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 18th day of July 2024