Judge Andrew E. Cooper, Case Number: 23CHCV01719, Date: 2024-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

SEPTEMBER 12, 2024

(Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and

Requests for Production of Documents, Set One)

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 23CHCV01719

RELIEF REQUESTED: Orders compelling Defendant’s verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), Set One. Plaintiff further requests that the Court order monetary sanctions against Defendant and/or its counsel in the combined amount of $11,040.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motions are granted. Defendant is ordered to provide objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests within 30 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $510.00, payable within 45 days.

Plaintiff brings this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code § 1790 et seq.) for a vehicle he purchased on or around 2/16/22, for which Defendant issued the manufacturer’s express warranty. (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 9.) Plaintiff alleges that the subject vehicle exhibited “defects, nonconformities, maladjustments or malfunctions relating to, inter alia, screen glitches in and out when in use, center of cluster displays water spots behind screen, cover of instrument panel is deformed from factory, and harsh clunk felt from drivetrain,” and Defendant “were unable or unwilling to make the SUBJECT VEHICLE conform to the applicable warranties.” (Id. at ¶¶ 13–16.)

On 6/14/23, 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 Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2; and (4) Negligent Repair (against the dealership defendant). On 7/18/23, Defendants filed their answers.

On 12/13/23, Plaintiff served her first set of Form Interrogatories, RFPs, Special Interrogatories, and RFAs on Defendant. (Decl. of Laura R. Schwartz ¶ 2.) On 5/2/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel Defendant’s responses thereto. On 8/12/24 and 8/14/24, Defendant filed its oppositions thereto. On 9/6/24, Plaintiff filed his replies.

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to interrogatories if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2030.260, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to a request for production of documents if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.300, subd. (b); 2031.260, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

A propounding party may move for an order deeming the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.280, subd. (b); 2033.250, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Id. at subd. (c).)

Here, as Plaintiff electronically served his first set of discovery requests on Defendant on 12/13/23, the last day for Defendant to respond was 1/15/24. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6.) Defendant argues that the instant motions are moot because on 8/12/24 and 8/13/24, Defendant served verified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Decl. of Gregory G. Brezovec ¶ 5.) Plaintiff argues in reply that because Defendant has included objections in its discovery responses, the responses are therefore not code-compliant, and the Court should grant the instant motions. (Pl.’s Reply 6:1–3.)

The Court agrees, and reiterates its above finding that Defendant failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s validly-served discovery requests. The Court therefore finds that by 1/15/24, Defendant had waived any objections to the discovery requests.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant’s objection-free discovery responses are granted.

However, based on the “substantial compliance” in responding to the Requests for Admissions, the request to deem them admitted is denied.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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).)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Additionally, “the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff requests $2,760.00 in monetary sanctions to be imposed on Defendant and/or its attorneys per motion, totaling $11,040.00. This amount encompasses: (1) 2 hours of Plaintiff’s attorney’s time spent drafting each motion; and (2) 4 hours spent reviewing each of Defendant’s oppositions, drafting replies, and appearing for each hearing, at counsel’s hourly rate of $450.00 per hours. (Schwartz Decl. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff also seeks to recover $60.00 in filing fees per motion. (Ibid.)

Defendant argues in opposition that sanctions should not be awarded, as “there is simply no justification for sanctions in this case against FCA US given good faith efforts to address its mistake by counsel.” (Def.’s Opp. 5:15–16.) Plaintiff disagrees, arguing that Defendant “failed to timely respond to an authorized method of discovery, failed to respond to the repeated attempts by Plaintiff to obtain responses without the need for a discovery motion, and failed to respond to the numerous offers by Plaintiff to withdraw the motions in return for obtaining the responses.” (Pl.’s Reply 5:26–6:1.)

In granting the instant motions, the Court finds it reasonable to award Plaintiff sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $510.00.

The motions are granted. Defendant is ordered to provide objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests within 30 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $510.00 within 45 days.