Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2021-01215534, Date: 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

The court requests the parties to appear at the hearing on 12-20-22.

Defendant’s (KIA America, Inc.) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Marilyn Weger’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, filed on 7-19-22 under ROA 109, and Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Micah Weger’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, filed on 7-19-22 under ROA 117, are CONTINUED to 1-17-22 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C32.

Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431 (Obregon), states, “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate also involves the exercise of discretion. The level of effort at informal resolution which satisfies the ‘reasonable and good faith attempt’ standard depends upon the circumstances. In a larger, more complex discovery context, a greater effort at informal resolution may be warranted. In a simpler, or more narrowly focused case, a more modest effort may suffice. The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant. Judges have broad powers and responsibilities to determine what measures and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances. [Citations.]”  “Townsend might create the impression that the required consequence of an inadequate effort at informal resolution is complete denial of the requested discovery, but it does not compel that conclusion. Instead, Townsend can be seen as an example of a failure to make any real effort at informal resolution,  a failure so egregious as to justify immediate and outright denial of further discovery. But not every finding that additional informal resolution efforts are required can be categorized as a failure so egregious as to justify summary denial of discovery. Such categorical rulings should be reserved for cases of clear intent to burden or harass, cases of clear flaunting of statutory responsibilities, cases of established track records of lack of good faith, and the like. The range of a judge's discretion is broad, and litigants cannot always predict exactly where on that broad range a particular judge might alight in a particular case. The party who attempts informal resolution, but mispredicts the judge's location on the reasonable spectrum of possible levels of effort, should not inevitably be penalized by outright denial of possibly critical discovery.” (Id. at pp. 433-434; Footnotes 8 and 9 omitted.)

Here, Defendant filed the Motions on 7-19-22.  Defendant did not make any meet and confer efforts until it sent a meet and confer letter by way of email to Plaintiffs (Marilyn Weger and Micah Weger) on 7-18-22.  The court finds that sending a meet and confer letter the day before the filing of the Motions was not a “. . . reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)  The parties’ efforts to meet and confer were insufficient because Defendant did not give Plaintiffs a meaningful opportunity to response to the meet and confer letter before filing the Motions.  Plaintiffs’ Oppositions (filed on 12-7-22 under ROA Nos. 202 and 204) raise the issue as to the sufficiency of the meet and confer efforts.  By raising the sufficiency of the meet and confer efforts in the Oppositions, Plaintiffs have indicated they are open to informally resolving the discovery disputes that are the subject of the Motions.

The court ORDERS the parties to meaningfully meet and confer in person, by remote technology, or by telephone no later than 1-3-22.  The court ORDERS the parties to file a joint statement, not exceeding three pages, describing their further meet and confer efforts, and the extent of any remaining dispute no later than 1-6-22.

Defendant is to give notice.