Heather Ramirez-Kotey vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California Corporation

34-2023-00335002-CU-BC-GDS: Heather Ramirez-Kotey vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California Corporation 11/12/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff states the incorrect address in its Notice of Motion and does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). The correct address for Departments 53 and 54 (Law and Motion) of the Sacramento County Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento, California 95814. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Department 54’s correct address, Local Rule 1.06, and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Plaintiff’s counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the notice to today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Plaintiff Heather Ramirez-Kotey’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents from Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Defendant”) is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

Plaintiff filed this Lemon Law action on February 17, 2023. Plaintiff’s Complaint includes two causes of action: (1) violation of Song-Beverly – breach of express warranty; and (2) fraudulent inducement – concealment. Plaintiff alleges that on July 25, 2021 she leased a new 2021 Honda Pilot that came with express written warranties from Defendant.

Plaintiff served the at issue discovery requests on December 22, 2023. (Tran Decl., ¶ 6.) Defendant responded on March 5, 2024. (Tran Decl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff now seeks an order compelling further responses to requests for production nos. 3, 4, 7, 12, 30, 32-33, 37, 44. Defendant opposes, arguing that its responses are code compliant and Plaintiff has failed to show good cause to compel further response.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(b)(1) requires that a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (See also Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223-224.)

34-2023-00335002-CU-BC-GDS: Heather Ramirez-Kotey vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California Corporation 11/12/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54

As noted by Defendant, Plaintiff makes no reference to the good cause which justifies compelling further responses to the requests at issue. Plaintiffs’ separate statement provides no argument, legal justification, or factual basis for compelling production. Plaintiffs’ memorandum of points authorities does no better and simply states that Defendant should be compelled to provide further responses.

Where a showing of good cause is required, such “showing must be liberally construed.' (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.App.2d 355, 387.) However, Plaintiff makes no such argument of fact as to why there is good cause to compel further responses to the specific requests at issue.

Court concludes Plaintiff has failed satisfy the requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(b)(1) that the moving party 'set forth specific facts showing good cause' justifying the discovery at issue here. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to request for production, set one, Nos. 3, 4, 7, 12, 30, 32-33, 37, 44 is hereby DENIED.

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff also purports to seek an order compelling Defendant’s production of documents responsive to the subject requests, the motion must also be denied because (1) Plaintiff did not file a motion to compel compliance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320(a) and (2) such an order would not be appropriate here. A motion to compel compliance pursuant to section 2031.320(a) is appropriate only where a responding party has agreed to produce documents, but then fails to permit inspection consistent with that response. Here, the motion does not indicate that Defendant has failed to produce any documents which it previously agreed to produce and thus, there is no justification for an order compelling Defendant to comply with its prior agreement to produce responsive documents.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument;

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00335002-CU-BC-GDS: Heather Ramirez-Kotey vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California Corporation 11/12/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54

and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.