Judge Andrew E. Cooper, Case Number: 23CHCV03311, Date: 2024-09-20 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 19, 2024

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

Requests for Production of Documents, Set One)

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 23CHCV03311

RELIEF REQUESTED: Orders compelling Defendant’s 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 in the combined amount of $6,400.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motions to compel Defendant’s objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and RFPs are granted. Defendant is ordered to provide objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests within 30 days. The motion to deem Plaintiff’s RFAs, Set One, as admitted, is denied. The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $500.00, payable within 45 days.

Plaintiff brings this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code § 1790 et seq.) for a vehicle she purchased on or around 8/28/20, for which Defendant issued the manufacturer’s express warranty. (Compl. ¶¶ 10–11.) Plaintiff alleges that the subject vehicle exhibited “defective powertrain system; defective engine; defective transmission; defective electrical system; and/or additional defects,” and Defendant was “unable to service or repair the Vehicle to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of opportunities.” (Id. at ¶¶ 12–13.)

On 10/30/23, Plaintiff filed her complaint, alleging against the Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Subdivision (d) of Civil Code Section 1793.2; (2) Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civil Code Section 1793.2; (3) Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2; (4) Breach of Express Written Warranty; (5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; and (6) Violation of Tanner Consumer Protection Act. On 12/7/23, Defendant filed its answer.

On 12/8/23, Plaintiff served her first set of Form Interrogatories, RFPs, Special Interrogatories, and RFAs on Defendant. (Decl. of Jonathan Mora ¶ 3.) On 5/10/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel Defendant’s responses thereto. On 8/27/24 and 8/28/24, Defendant filed its oppositions thereto. On 9/9/24, Plaintiff filed her reply.

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 her first set of discovery requests on Defendant on 12/8/23, the last day for Defendant to respond was 1/10/24. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6.) Defendant argues that the instant motions are moot because on 5/28/24, Defendant served responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, with verifications served on 7/7/24. (Decl. of Gregory G. Brezovec ¶¶ 5–6.) 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 3:24–4:2.)

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 1/10/24, Defendant had waived any objections to the discovery requests, as reminded by Plaintiff’s counsel on multiple occasions. (Mora Decl. ¶¶ 6–8.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant’s objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and RFPs are granted.

As Defendant served responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs “in substantial compliance” with the code, barring the inclusion of objections that it has now waived, the motion to deem Plaintiff’s RFAs, Set One, as admitted, is denied. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, 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 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 a total of $6,400.00 in monetary sanctions to be imposed against Defendant. 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. 5:24–25.) Plaintiff disagrees, arguing that “Defendant was afforded ample opportunity to comply with its obligations under the California Code of Civil Procedure, but rather than engage in good faith discovery Defendant chose to willfully ignore Plaintiff’s requests for responses, Defendant chose to ignore Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts, and Defendant disregarded Plaintiff’s multiple extensions to provide responses.” (Pl.’s Reply 5:15–19.)

In granting the instant motions, the Court finds it reasonable to award Plaintiff sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $500.00.

The motions to compel Defendant’s objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and RFPs are granted. Defendant is ordered to provide objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests within 30 days. The motion to deem Plaintiff’s RFAs, Set One, as admitted, is denied. The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $500.00, payable within 45 days.