2017-00224666-CU-CO

Manveen Sandhu vs. Elk Grove Auto Group, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Response to Special Interrogatories

Filed By: Rohr, Barbara A.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant Elk Grove Auto Group’s verified responses to special interrogatories is ruled on as follows.

This is a lemon law case arising out of plaintiffs’ purchase of a vehicle from defendant dealership. Plaintiffs served on the dealership a set of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admissions. Defendant dealership timely responded to each set of discovery with both objections and substantive responses but with a notation that verifications for each would follow.

Plaintiffs now move to compel verified responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admissions, contending that unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all and also asking for monetary sanctions.

Defendant opposes, arguing inter alia that its timely-served objections did not require verification and that the present motion could have been avoided if plaintiffs had made any effort to meet-and-confer.

At the outset, the court must remind all counsel but especially plaintiffs’ that given the number of motions such as this which must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved informally. This serves to highlight the critical need for all counsel’s legitimate, reasonable and good faith meet-and-confer efforts before filing any discovery motion. Although it dealt with a motion to compel answers to deposition questions, the decision of Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431 is instructive in that it clarifies that the meet-and-confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather it “requires…a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Id., at 1438.) Nevertheless, despite the number of other matters on this crowded calendar, this court will address yet another largely unremarkable discovery dispute which could have and should have been resolved by counsel via the meet-and-confer process without the use of finite judicial resources.

As it is undisputed that defendant’s initial responses to plaintiffs’ discovery were timely served and the only deficiency cited in the moving papers appears to be the lack of verifications, the court will now order defendant to provide the requisite verification for its responses to the special interrogatories no later than 12/31/2018 (unless plaintiffs agree to a later date memorialized in writing).

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is denied since the court finds the present motion was not substantially justified under the circumstances.

Moving counsel is advised that where discovery responses (as opposed to further responses) are sought, copies of the discovery need not be included with the motion. Proof of service is all that is required.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

Item 9 2017-00224666-CU-CO

Manveen Sandhu vs. Elk Grove Auto Group, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Response to Request for Admissions

Filed By: Rohr, Barbara A.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant Elk Grove Auto Group’s verified responses to requests for admissions is ruled on as follows.

This is a lemon law case arising out of plaintiffs’ purchase of a vehicle from defendant dealership. Plaintiffs served on the dealership a set of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admissions. Defendant

dealership timely responded to each set of discovery with both objections and substantive responses but with a notation that verifications for each would follow.

Plaintiffs now move to compel verified responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admissions, contending that unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all and also asking for monetary sanctions.

Defendant opposes, arguing inter alia that its timely-served objections did not require verification and that the present motion could have been avoided if plaintiffs had made any effort to meet-and-confer.

At the outset, the court must remind all counsel but especially plaintiffs’ that given the number of motions such as this which must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved informally. This serves to highlight the critical need for all counsel’s legitimate, reasonable and good faith meet-and-confer efforts before filing any discovery motion. Although it dealt with a motion to compel answers to deposition questions, the decision of Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431 is instructive in that it clarifies that the meet-and-confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather it “requires…a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Id., at 1438.) Nevertheless, despite the number of other matters on this crowded calendar, this court will address yet another largely unremarkable discovery dispute which could have and should have been resolved by counsel via the meet-and-confer process without the use of finite judicial resources.

As it is undisputed that defendant’s initial responses to plaintiffs’ discovery were timely served and the only deficiency cited in the moving papers appears to be the lack of verifications, the court will now order defendant to provide the requisite verification for its responses to the requests for admissions no later than 12/31/2018 (unless plaintiffs agree to a later date memorialized in writing).

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is denied since the court finds the present motion was not substantially justified under the circumstances.

Moving counsel is advised that where discovery responses (as opposed to further responses) are sought, copies of the discovery need not be included with the motion. Proof of service is all that is required.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

Item 10 2017-00224666-CU-CO

Manveen Sandhu vs. Elk Grove Auto Group, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories

Filed By: Rohr, Barbara A.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant Elk Grove Auto Group’s verified responses to form interrogatories is ruled on as follows.

This is a lemon law case arising out of plaintiffs’ purchase of a vehicle from defendant dealership. Plaintiffs served on the dealership a set of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admissions. Defendant dealership timely responded to each set of discovery with both objections and substantive responses but with a notation that verifications for each would follow.

Plaintiffs now move to compel verified responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admissions, contending that unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all and also asking for monetary sanctions.

Defendant opposes, arguing inter alia that its timely-served objections did not require verification and that the present motion could have been avoided if plaintiffs had made any effort to meet-and-confer.

At the outset, the court must remind all counsel but especially plaintiffs’ that given the number of motions such as this which must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved informally. This serves to highlight the critical need for all counsel’s legitimate, reasonable and good faith meet-and-confer efforts before filing any discovery motion. Although it dealt with a motion to compel answers to deposition questions, the decision of Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431 is instructive in that it clarifies that the meet-and-confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather it “requires…a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Id., at 1438.) Nevertheless, despite the number of other matters on this crowded calendar, this court will address yet another largely unremarkable discovery dispute which could have and should have been resolved by counsel via the meet-and-confer process without the use of finite judicial resources.

As it is undisputed that defendant’s initial responses to plaintiffs’ discovery were timely served and the only deficiency cited in the moving papers appears to be the lack of verifications, the court will now order defendant to provide the requisite verification for its responses to the form interrogatories no later than 12/31/2018 (unless plaintiffs agree to a later date memorialized in writing).

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is denied since the court finds the present motion was not substantially justified under the circumstances.

Moving counsel is advised that where discovery responses (as opposed to further responses) are sought, copies of the discovery need not be included with the motion. Proof of service is all that is required.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

Item 11 2017-00224666-CU-CO

Manveen Sandhu vs. Elk Grove Auto Group, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Production of Documents

Filed By: Rohr, Barbara A.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant Elk Grove Auto Group’s verified responses to requests for production is ruled on as follows.

This is a lemon law case arising out of plaintiffs’ purchase of a vehicle from defendant dealership. Plaintiffs served on the dealership a set of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admissions. Defendant dealership timely responded to each set of discovery with both objections and substantive responses but with a notation that verifications for each would follow.

Plaintiffs now move to compel verified responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admissions, contending that unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all and also asking for monetary sanctions.

Defendant opposes, arguing inter alia that its timely-served objections did not require verification and that the present motion could have been avoided if plaintiffs had made any effort to meet-and-confer.

At the outset, the court must remind all counsel but especially plaintiffs’ that given the number of motions such as this which must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved informally. This serves to highlight the critical need for all counsel’s legitimate, reasonable and good faith meet-and-confer efforts before filing any discovery motion. Although it dealt with a motion to compel answers to deposition questions, the decision of Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431 is instructive in that it clarifies that the meet-and-confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather it “requires…a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Id., at 1438.) Nevertheless, despite the number of other matters on this crowded calendar, this court will address yet another largely unremarkable discovery dispute which could have and should have been resolved by counsel via the meet-and-confer process without the use of finite judicial resources.

As it is undisputed that defendant’s initial responses to plaintiffs’ discovery were timely served and the only deficiency cited in the moving papers appears to be the lack of verifications, the court will now order defendant to provide the requisite verification for its responses to the requests for production no later than 12/31/2018 (unless plaintiffs agree to a later date memorialized in writing).

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is denied since the court finds the present motion was not substantially justified under the circumstances.

Moving counsel is advised that where discovery responses (as opposed to further responses) are sought, copies of the discovery need not be included with the motion. Proof of service is all that is required.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)