Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 23STCV23934, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

On October 2, 2023, Plaintiff Raymond Hooker filed this action against Defendant General Motors LLC arising from Plaintiff’s purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle.

On February 8, 2024, Plaintiff served Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) on Defendant. On April 24, 2023, Defendant served responses, which Plaintiff deemed insufficient. After attempting to meet and confer, on May 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 28-29, 37-64, 67-70, 73-74 and 77-86.

For a motion to compel further, Plaintiff must meet and confer with Defendant 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) and file a joint statement. Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration makes clear that they did not attempt to follow Department 48’s procedures for a joint statement.

If any party continues to electronically file noncompliant documents, the Court may strike the filings or issue sanctions.

Plaintiff’s meet-and-confer letters do not say much more than that Defendant’s objections are improper. (See Le Decl., Exs. G, L, P.) Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s communication efforts are boilerplate. (See Le Decl., Exs. I, K, N; see also Le Decl., Ex. H.) This letter-based meet-and-confer process clearly was not effective and does not demonstrate a good faith effort to narrow down the issues. Accordingly, the Court will continue the hearing for submission of a Joint Statement after a more robust meet-and-confer process.

Additionally, Defendant objects to some RFPs on the grounds that they are duplicative of Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One, for which Plaintiff did not seek to compel further responses. A party who fails to meet the time limits for a motion to compel cannot avoid the consequences of his delay and lack of diligence by propounding the same question again. (Professional Career Colleges, Magna Institute, Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490, 494.) The Joint Statement should also address this issue and provide the Set One RFPs that Defendant contends are duplicative.

The separate statements are overly long and unnecessarily repeat the same arguments in favor of each party’s position. If the supporting argument is the same as those for a prior RFP, the party should incorporate the initial argument by reference in subsequent responses. The Court expects that the Joint Statement will be shorter than Plaintiff’s 102-page separate statement and Defendant’s 55-page separate statement.

Plaintiff’s forthcoming motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories suffers from the same issues. On its own motion, the Court will also continue that hearing.

The Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) is CONTINUED to January 30, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

The Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) scheduled for 11/21/2024 is ADVANCED to this date and CONTINUED to January 30, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer telephonically in a good faith effort to narrow down the discovery issues.

The parties are ORDERED to prepare one Joint Statement for the requests for production and one Joint Statement for the interrogatories. The Joint Statements must comply with Exhibit A of Department 48’s Courtroom Information and be filed no later than 10 days before the hearings.

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.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court