Judge Andrew E. Cooper, Case Number: 24CHCV00303, Date: 2025-03-12 Tentative Ruling

MARCH 11, 2025

(Requests for Production of Documents, Set One)

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 24CHCV00303

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Estefani Hernandez Lopez; and Pedro Garzon (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant’s compliance with its responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Set One, agreeing to provide documents responsive to RFP Nos. 1–5, 7–16, 33–36, 41, and 44. Plaintiffs also seek to recover monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $2,180.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to produce documents to Plaintiffs’ RFPs, Set One, Nos. 1–5, 7–16, 33–36, 41, and 44, in compliance with its responses thereto, within 30 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $250.00.

MARCH 11, 2025

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

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 24CHCV00303

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Estefani Hernandez Lopez; and Pedro Garzon (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

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

· Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Set One, Nos. 45–46.

Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions to be imposed against Defendant in the combined amount of $4,700.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motions are granted in part. The Court orders Defendant to provide further code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 45–48, and RFPs, Set One, Nos. 45–46, as limited, within 30 days. The Court issues monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $500.00.

Plaintiffs bring this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code § 1790 et seq.) for a vehicle he purchased on or around 5/24/19, for which Defendant issued the manufacturer’s express warranty. (Compl. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff alleges that “defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period. The nonconformities substantially impaired the use, value and/or safety of the Subject Vehicle,” but Defendant “was unable to conform the Subject Vehicle to the applicable express warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts.” (Id. at ¶¶ 18, 20.)

On 1/30/24, Plaintiffs filed their complaint, alleging against Defendants the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty; and (4) Negligent Repair. On 2/28/24, Defendant filed its answer.

On 3/6/24, Plaintiffs served their first set of discovery requests on Defendant. (Decl. of Armando Lopez ¶ 3.) On 9/30/24, Defendant served its responses thereto. (Id. at ¶ 5.)

On 11/14/24, Plaintiffs filed the instant motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to the subject discovery requests. No oppositions have been filed to date. On 3/5/25, Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition to the instant motions.

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, Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that on 10/30/24, he sent Defendant’s counsel a meet-and-confer letter raising the issues discussed herein but received no response (Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 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).) “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220, subd. (c).)

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, Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendant’s further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 45–48, which “seek repair rates for 2019 Jeep WRANGLER UNLIMITED vehicles including the top five symptoms and components replaced.” (Pls.’ SPROG Mot. 4:22–23.) In response, Defendant asserted objections based on relevance and overbreadth. (Ex B. to Lopez Decl.)

Plaintiffs argue that “the information sought is relevant because it would tend to show whether a widespread defect or nonconformity—of the same type that Plaintiffs experienced—exists in these types of vehicles. This information could refute FCA’s affirmative defenses claiming that Plaintiffs and/or others misused or abused the vehicle or engaged in unauthorized or unreasonable use as the cause of the problems with the vehicle.” (Pls.’ SPROG Mot. at 4:27–5:1.) Plaintiffs further argue that “information is relevant to proving whether a civil penalty is warranted because it would tend to show whether FCA made its determination not to repurchase Plaintiffs’ vehicle even though FCA had information indicating that these types of vehicles contained a defect or nonconformity and, thus, failed to use information reasonably available to it.” (Id. at 5:18–22.)

While Defendant has failed to oppose the instant motions, the Court finds that Special Interrogatory Nos. 45–48 are not sufficiently tailored in scope. Accordingly, the Court limits the scope of the interrogatories to repairs of 2019 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited vehicles, purchased in California, for the specific defects alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint. The motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 45–48 is granted with this limitation.

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).) 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, Plaintiffs’ RFP Nos. 45 and 46 seek documents relating to consumer complaints for similar defects in 2019 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited vehicles, and warranty repairs to such vehicles. (Ex. A to Lopez Decl.) Defendant asserted relevance, ambiguity, and attorney work product privilege objections in response to RFP Nos. 45 and 46. (Ex. B to Lopez Decl.)

The Court again notes that Defendant has failed to file any opposition to the instant motions. Nevertheless, the Court limits the scope of the RFPs to complaints and repairs regarding 2019 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited vehicles purchased only in California. The motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to RFP Nos. 45–46 is granted with this limitation.

“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 [or RFPs], 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); Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (h).) 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, Plaintiffs requests a total combined sum of $4,700.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant. (Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 9–11.) In granting the instant unopposed motions, the Court finds it reasonable to award Plaintiffs $500.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant.

The unopposed motions are granted in part. The Court orders Defendant to provide further code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 45–48, and RFPs, Set One, Nos. 45–46, as limited above, within 30 days. The Court issues monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $500.00.