Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 24STCV13031, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV13031    Hearing Date: April 17, 2025    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On November 18, 2024, Plaintiff Michelle Farias filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc. arising from Plaintiff’s purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle.

On October 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories.

A party may move to compel a further response to a discovery demand 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., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.310, subd. (a) [documents], 2033.290, subd. (a) [admissions].)

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’s counsel’s declaration and 51-page separate statement make clear that they did not attempt to follow these procedures.  On September 25, 2024, Plaintiff sent a 15-page letter to Defendant.  (Azimtash Decl. ¶ 11 & Ex. G.)  On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff received a response from Defendant.  (Azimtash Decl. ¶ 12 & Ex. H.)  Because Defendant “essentially indicat[ed] that [Defendant] will stick with its responses as they were sent,” Plaintiff “ha[s] no choice but to file this Motion.”  (Azimtash Decl. ¶¶ 12, 14.)

In fact, Defendant’s September 30, 2024 response concluded with, “Under these circumstances, we ask that the parties meet and confer by telephone in an attempt to meet and confer on the few responses actually at issue before requiring the court's intervention.  Please let us know of your availability to meet and confer by telephone which we expect to be more productive than simply trading letters back and forth.”  (Azimtash Decl. Ex. H.)  Plaintiff apparently ignored this request.

The Court will continue the hearing on the motion so the parties can meet and confer and follow the proper procedures, including the submission of a Joint Statement.  Plaintiff’s two other pending discovery motions suffer from the same problems, and they will also be continued.

The Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories (Set One) is CONTINUED to June 26, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.

The Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (Set One) scheduled for 04/22/2025 at 08:30 AM is ADVANCED to this date and CONTINUED to June 26, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.

The Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories (Set One) scheduled for 04/24/2025 at 08:30 AM is ADVANCED to this date and CONTINUED to June 26, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith.  The Court strongly encourages the parties to consult newly enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 for guidance on the scope of relevant discovery.

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 17th day of April 2025