Judge Andrew E. Cooper, Case Number: 23CHCV01384, Date: 2024-08-02 Tentative Ruling

(Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One)

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 23CHCV01384

RELIEF REQUESTED: Orders compelling Defendant’s further responses to the following discovery requests:

· Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Set One, Request Nos. 45 and 46.

Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys in the total amount of $5,240.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, is denied.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs, Set One, is continued. The parties’ counsel are ordered to meet and further confer either telephonically or in-person within 60 days, to resolve and/or narrow all outstanding discovery issues. Plaintiff’s counsel is to file a declaration with the Court which confirms compliance with this order or explains why no meaningful meet and confer occurred.

Plaintiff brings this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code § 1790 et seq.) for a vehicle she purchased on or around 1/31/21, for which Defendant issued the manufacturer’s express warranty. (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 15.) Plaintiff alleges that “defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period,” and Defendant “was unable to conform the Subject Vehicle to the applicable express warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts.” (Id. at ¶¶ 16, 18.)

On 5/11/23, Plaintiff filed her complaint, alleging against the Defendant and the dealership the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty; (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty; (3) Violation of of Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2; and (4) Negligent Repair (against the dealership defendant). On 9/5/23, Defendants filed their answers.

On 12/13/23, Plaintiff served her first set of Special Interrogatories and RFPs on Defendant. (Decl. of Armando Lopez ¶ 3.) On 1/5/24, Defendant served its responses thereto. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

On 3/18/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel further responses to her first set of Special Interrogatories and RFPs. On 7/24/24, Defendant filed its oppositions thereto. On 7/26/24, Plaintiff filed her replies.

Here, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s additional responses to the subject discovery requests, arguing that the matters sought are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, and that Defendant’s objections thereto are without merit.

A motion to compel further discovery responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration stating “facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2); 2016.040.)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that on 2/8/24, he sent Defendant’s counsel a meet-and-confer letter raising the issues discussed herein. (Lopez Decl. ¶ 5.) On 2/16/23, Defendant’s counsel responded, but the parties were unable to resolve the issues informally. (Id. at ¶¶ 7–8.) Therefore, the Court finds that counsel has satisfied the preliminary meet and confer requirement under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (b)(1) and 2031.310, subdivision (b)(2).

“The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: (1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered; (2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings; or (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.” (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) “Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.220.) “If an objection is made to an interrogatory or to a part of an interrogatory, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response.” (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.240, subd. (b).)

A propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses to interrogatories if any of the following apply: “(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s further responses to her Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 45–48. “Interrogatories 45-48 seek repair rates for 2021 Chrysler Pacifica vehicles including the top five symptoms and components replaced.” (Pl.’s SPROG1 Mot. 4:12–13.) Defendant responded to each of the subject interrogatories as follows: “FCA US objects to this interrogatory because it is not limited to any claim of defect or nonconformity in this case and therefore it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US further objects to this interrogatory because it lacks foundation and is overly broad.” (Pl.’s SPROG1 Sep. Stmt.)

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s responses are evasive and its objections are meritless because “the information sought is relevant because it would tend to show whether a widespread defect or nonconformity—of the same type that Plaintiff experienced—exists in these types of vehicles.” (Pl.’s SPROG1 Mot. 4:17–19.) “The information sought by Plaintiff would show how many repairs FCA anticipated with the 2021 Chrysler Pacifica vehicles and to what degree the repairs exceeded those expectations. When combined with information showing the top five components and symptoms at issue,—and assuming that they are the same as the problems experienced by Plaintiff—Plaintiff could show that FCA had knowledge about a widespread defect or nonconformity and failed to act despite this knowledge.” (Id. at 5:3–8.)

Defendant argues in opposition that “these interrogatories broadly seek data without narrowing the scope to the same or similar nature of reported defects by Plaintiff.” (Def.’s SPROG1 Opp. 4:18–19.) “Plaintiff here make requests without limitation to the actual complaints made by Plaintiff that might support Plaintiff’s claims in this matter.” (Id. at 6:24–25.)

Plaintiff argues in reply that “Interrogatories 45-48 would be probative of whether FCA had reason to know that its 2021 Chrysler Pacifica vehicles were experiencing an abnormally high number of warranty repairs regarding the same problems that Plaintiff experienced with their vehicle. Not only would this information be relevant to demonstrating that a defect likely exists in Plaintiff’s vehicle, but it would also show that FCA failed to provide remedy to Plaintiff even though it knew that these vehicles were suffering from widespread warranty problems.” (Pl.’s SPROG1 Reply 2:12–17.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the subject interrogatories are overbroad and not relevant to Plaintiff’s instant claims in this straightforward Song-Beverly Act case. As Defendant observes, the subject interrogatories are not sufficiently tailored to the specific defect experienced by Plaintiff. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to discover evidence of Defendant’s prior knowledge of the subject defect, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s other discovery requests sufficiently seek the same information. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to her Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 45–48, is denied.

California law requires a responding party to respond to each request for production of documents with either a statement of compliance, a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply, or an objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).) If the response includes an objection to the demand in part, it must also include a statement of compliance or noncompliance as set forth above. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (a).) Additionally, the response must (1) identify the particular document that falls within the category of the request to which the objection is being made, and (2) expressly set forth the extent of, and specific ground for, the objection. (Id. at subd. (b).)¿A propounding party may move for an order compelling further response to a discovery request if it decides that “an objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s further responses to her RFPs, Set One, Nos. 45 and 46. RFP No. 45 seeks “All DOCUMENTS evidencing complaints by owners of the 2021 Chrysler Pacifica vehicle regarding any of the complaints that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented to YOUR or YOUR authorized repair facilities for repair during the warranty period.” (Pl.’s RFP1 Sep. Stmt.) RFP No. 46 seeks “All DOCUMENTS evidencing warranty repairs to 2021 Chrysler Pacifica vehicles regarding any of the components that YOU or YOUR authorized repair facilities performed repairs on under warranty.” (Ibid.)

Defendant objected to the subject RFPs on the bases that they are “vague, ambiguous, overly broad and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case.” (Ibid.) Defendant further objected to the subject RFPs in the bases of attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff argues that “here, requests 45 and 46—seeking similar complaints and warranty repairs—seek relevant information.” (Pl.’s RFP1 Mot. 5:10–11.) “The information sought is relevant because it would tend to show whether a defect or nonconformity exists in these types of vehicles and when this defect or nonconformity first arose. Information about other similar vehicle complaints may also refute FCA’s affirmative defenses claiming that Plaintiff and/or others misused or abused the vehicle or engaged in unauthorized or unreasonable use. If other owners of the same type of vehicles experienced the same defects and nonconformities on a wide scale, this information would tend to prove that the defects found in Plaintiff’s vehicle were not caused by misuse, abuse, or unreasonable use.” (Id. at 5:15–21.) Plaintiff argues that her “requests are reasonably particularized because they seek documents narrowly tailored to a specific subject matter,—warranty repairs and customer complaints—are further narrowed by a specific model vehicle, and are limited to those defects that FCA’s authorized repair facilities repaired on the subject vehicle during the warranty period.” (Id. at 7:23–26.)

In opposition, Defendant states that the motion is moot because Defendant served supplemental responses to the subject requests on 7/19/24. (Decl. of Michael A. Tudzin ¶ 3.) In these supplemental responses, Defendant states the following: “FCA US conducted a reasonable search and diligent inquiry in the areas of the company where such information was likely to be found, and will comply and produce documents relating to other customer concerns/complaints and warranty claims data for the alleged issues identified in the repair orders of the subject vehicle in other 2021 Chrysler Pacifica Limited vehicles in the State of California.” (2:21–25.)

Plaintiff argues in reply that the motion should be granted because Defendant’s supplemental responses are not verified. (Pl.’s RFP1 Reply 1:6–9.) Based on the foregoing, the Court continues Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs, Set One. The parties’ counsel are ordered to meet and further confer either telephonically or in-person within 60 days, to resolve and/or narrow all outstanding discovery issues. Plaintiff’s counsel is to file a declaration with the Court which confirms compliance with this order or explains why no meaningful meet and confer occurred.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand [or interrogatory], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (h).)

The issue of sanctions is deferred as to Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs, Set One.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, is denied.