Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 21STCV45978, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV45978 Hearing Date: November 17, 2023 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES FROM DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION FROM DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, AND
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS.
Both motions are granted.
On or before 12/8/23, Defendant FCA US LLC shall serve
further responses, and produce documents, without objections, and in full
compliance with the California Discovery Act, CCP §2016.010 et seq., as
to the interrogatories and requests for documents served by plaintiffs and
addressed in their separate statements.
On or before that same date, counsel Ongaro PC, shall
pay discovery sanctions in the total sum of $5,070.00 to plaintiffs, the Court
finding the absence of substantial justification. E.g., CCP § 2023.030.
On 12/16/21, ESMERALDA RAMIREZ and GUSTAVO ORTIZ
HERNANDEZ (“plaintiffs”) filed a Lemon-Law Complaint against FCA US LLC
(“Defendant” or “FCA”), alleging that they purchased a 2020 Jeep Compass having
unrepaired issues not conforming to warranties, so plaintiffs requested a
remedy, but Defendant’s offer did not comply with Song-Beverly Act, because it
made improper deductions from the restitution amount, and contained improper
terms.
In the first motion, with regard to interrogatory
numbers 34, 35, and 37-39, asking about any release agreement that plaintiffs
were required to sign, plaintiffs contend that FCA responded to different
requests—i.e., for information about release documents sent to plaintiffs,
and Defendant reported an inability to comply. For that motion, plaintiffs seek
sanctions in the sum of $2,460.00. As to
the documents motion, plaintiffs seek further responses to request number 43
seeking the release agreement that FCA required Plaintiffs to sign, and
request number 46 seeking all documents that Plaintiffs were required to
sign as part of FCA’s pre-litigation offer letter. As to
those, plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s responses are evasive in addressing
releases sent to or exchanged with plaintiffs, which rephrases what the
requests actually are, in that plaintiffs seek more than just sent or exchanged
release information. For the documents motion, plantiffs request $2,610.00 in
sanctions. Defendant opposes the motions, essentially on grounds that the
responses are in compliance and all documents have been produced. Defendant
reasons that its responses that it found no Release Agreement sent to or
exchanged with plaintiffs as a condition of the repurchase, are in compliance,
such that plaintiffs are attempting to force Defendant to respond with
documents or information that plaintiffs know are contended not to exist. As to sanctions, Defendant asserts those are
not justified as to discovery harassment.
Motions to Compel Further Interrogatory
and Document Responses
Compliant Responses Issue
Plaintiffs contend the responses to interrogatories
and document requests evasively are limited to sent or exchanged
information. Defendant’s oppositions do
not specifically address whether adding “sent” or “exchanged” has resulted in
evasive responses.
If interrogatory responses lack specificity, then
parties may move to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure
Section 2030.300(a), providing for motions to compel, where parties deem that
an answer is evasive, incomplete, or inadequate as to specification of
documents. Best Products, Inc. v.
Sup. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 1181, 1190.
A document response must consist of: 1) an agreement to comply, stating whether
the productions or inspection will be allowed “in whole or in part,” and that
all documents or things in the possession, custody or control of the
respondent, as to which no objection is made, will be included, by the date set
for inspection (unless informally extended in writing, or the designated timing
is subject to objection); 2) a
representation of inability to comply with the request, with a
specification of any person believed or known to have possession of
documents; or, 3) objections and
specification of withheld documents. CCP
§§2031.210(a), 2031.220, 2031.270, 2031.280.
Here, Defendant’s discovery responses simply have
narrowed the actual requests down to only sent or exchanged information, which
creates ambiguity as to whether the requested information exists for information
that was not sent or exchanged. Defendant therefore must supplement its
responses to respond fully to the interrogatories and document requests.
Sanctions
Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to
parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification
or other injustice. E.g., Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley
Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557-58. “ ‘[S]ubstantial justification” has been
understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is
well-grounded in both law and fact.” Doe
v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434. “If the party seeking a monetary sanction
meets its burden of proof, the burden shifts to the opposing party attempting
to avoid a monetary sanction to show that it acted with ‘substantial
justification.’ ” Doe v. U.S.
Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1435.
On their face, the subject discovery responses appear
to be purposefully evasive, by rephrasing the actual discovery requests to more
narrowed interpretations, as to which there is no substantial justification in
avoidance of sanctions. Further, the opposing memoranda have not attempted to
justify misinterpreting the subject requests in the responses.
Conclusion
Both motions are granted.