Judge Andrew E. Cooper, Case Number: 23CHCV03279, Date: 2025-01-30 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).

JANUARY 29, 2025

(Form Interrogatories and Requests for Admission, Set One)

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 23CHCV03279

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

· Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), Set One, Nos. 3–5, 13, 14, 18–24, 27–31 and 36–44.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, is:

Defendant to provide further, code compliant responses to Plaintiff’s RFA Nos. 3–5, 14, 18–19. 23, and 27–31 within 30 days. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, is continued.

Plaintiff bring this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code § 1790 et seq.) for a vehicle he leased on or around 6/9/21, for which Defendant issued the manufacturer’s express warranty. (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 8.) Plaintiff alleges that “the Subject Vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to, exterior and body component defects, HVAC system defects, electrical defects.” (Id. at ¶ 9.)

On 10/27/23, Plaintiffs filed his complaint, alleging against the dealership and manufacturer defendants 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; and (3) Violation of Song-Beverly Act Section 1973.2(b). On 11/20/23, Defendant filed its answer.

On 2/8/24, Plaintiff served his first set of discovery requests on Defendant. (Decl. of Mitchel A. Brim ¶ 9.) On 3/10/24, Defendant served its responses thereto. (Id. at ¶ 12.)

On 5/31/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel further responses to the subject discovery requests. On 9/20/24, the parties filed a Stipulated Protected Order regarding documents designated as confidential. On 9/23/24, Defendant filed its oppositions to the instant motions. On 9/30/24, Plaintiff filed his replies.

On 10/7/24, the Court continued the hearings on the instant motions, ordering the parties “to meet and confer in person or via phone … to resolve and/or narrow all outstanding discovery issues.” (10/7/24 Min. Order, p. 1.) On 1/23/24, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a supplemental declaration stating that Plaintiff withdraws his motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Set One.

Here, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s additional responses the subject discovery requests, arguing that Defendant’s objections thereto are without merit, and its responses are not code-compliant.

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); 2033.290, subd. (b)(1); 2016.040.)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that on 1/23/25, counsel for the parties met and conferred regarding the outstanding discovery motions. (1/23/25 Decl. of Mitchel A. Brim ¶ 3.) On 12/23/24, Defendant served supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and RFPs, Set One. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

California law requires a responding party to respond to each propounded request for admission with either a substantive answer or an objection to the particular request. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.210, subd. (b).) Each substantive answer must: “(1)¿Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2)¿Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3)¿Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220, subd. (b).) “If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Id. at subd. (c).)

A propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses to requests for admission if any of the following apply: “(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete; or (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff’s RFA Nos. 3–5 ask Defendant to admit that the subject vehicle is a “consumer good” and “new motor vehicle,” and that Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by the Act. RFA Nos. 13–14 ask Defendant to admit that its authorized repair facilities failed to begin or complete repairs on the subject vehicle within a reasonable time. RFA Nos. 18–24 ask Defendant to admit that despite Plaintiff presenting the subject vehicle for repair, Defendant did not offer to repurchase or replace the vehicle. RFA Nos. 27–31 ask Defendant to admit that Plaintiff requested a repurchase, but Defendant denied the request. RFA Nos. 36–44 ask Defendant to admit that the subject vehicle contained defects, not caused by Plaintiff’s misuse of the vehicle, and that Plaintiff presented the vehicle for repair of such defects.

As Defendant notes, it provided substantive responses to RFA Nos. 36–44, therefore no additional responses are warranted. (Def.’s RFA Opp. 4:7–24.) In response to RFA Nos. 3–5, 13–14, 18–24, and 27–31, Defendant responded only with objections, including those based on ambiguity, undue burden, relevance, and legal conclusion. Defendant stands by these objections, arguing that “many of these RFAS (e.g., Nos. 13, 24, 18, 27 and 28) seek information that is in the possession of third parties.” (Id. at 6:20–21.) “These, and nearly all other RFAS, seek information regarding policies, procedures, training materials and the like regarding many topics of a general nature and not specific to the vehicle at issue in this case (e.g., Nos. 30, 31).” (Id. at 7:6–8.)

Plaintiff’s counsel declares that since the date of the last hearing, “we have limited RFA Nos. 30 & 31 to June 20, 2022, to the present concerning the … ‘Subject Vehicle’. RFA No. 42 is limited to June 18, 2021, to the present.” (1/23/25 Brim Decl. ¶ 6.)

The Court finds that RFA Nos. 21 and 22 seek an improper legal conclusion, asking Defendant to admit “YOUR failure to promptly repurchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE was” willful and not in good faith. To this extent, the Court sustains Defendant’s objections to RFA Nos. 21 and 22. The Court also finds that RFA Nos. 13, 20, are 24 are ambiguous as to the meanings of the words “reasonable” and “promptly.” To this extent, the Court sustains Defendant’s objections to RFA Nos. 13, 20, and 24.

As to the remaining RFAs to which Defendant asserted objection-only responses, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the requests are relevant “to the subject of Plaintiff’s complaint, the vehicle’s warranty repair history, Defendant’s denials of Plaintiff’s allegations, and Defendant’s affirmative defenses.” (Pl.’s RFA Mot. 7:8–10.) Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to RFA Nos. 3–5, 14, 18–19. 23, and 27–31.

“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).) Discovery is relevant if it is admissible as evidence, or “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) “Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.” (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that “based on the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Compel Further Responses to the RFAs, Set One, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court continue the Motion to Compel Further Form Interrogatories 17.1 forty-five days to ensure that supplemental FROG 17.1 responses are code compliant.” (1/23/25 Brim Decl. ¶ 7.) To this extent, the Court continues the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, is: