Judge Andrew E. Cooper, Case Number: 24CHCV01321, Date: 2025-05-30 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).

MAY 29, 2025

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

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 24CHCV01321

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Tonie Barker; and Eric Barker (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.

Plaintiffs also seek monetary sanctions to be imposed against Defendant and its attorneys in the combined amount of $5,240.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 45–48 is granted in part. The Court orders Defendant to provide further code-compliant responses to the subject interrogatories, as limited below, within 30 days. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiffs’ RFPs, Set One, Nos. 45–45 is off-calendar as moot. The Court issues monetary sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys in the amount of $300.00.

Plaintiffs bring this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code § 1790 et seq.) for a vehicle they purchased on or around 10/13/21, for which Defendant issued the manufacturer’s express warranty. (Compl. ¶ 16.) 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 ¶¶ 17, 19.)

On 1/30/24, Plaintiffs filed their complaint, alleging against Defendant the sole cause of action for Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty. 5/6/24, Defendant filed its answer.

On 6/7/24, Plaintiffs served their first set of discovery requests on Defendant. (Decl. of Colby Meagle ¶ 3.) On 1/2/25, Defendant served its responses thereto, with verifications served on 1/28/25. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

On 2/13/25 and 2/14/25, Plaintiffs filed the instant motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to the subject discovery requests. On 5/16/25, Defendant filed its oppositions thereto. On 5/22/25, Plaintiffs filed their replies.

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 1/8/25, she sent Defendant’s counsel a meet-and-confer letter raising the issues discussed herein but received no response (Meagle Decl. ¶¶ 5 –7.) 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 2021 Ram 1500 vehicles including the top five symptoms and components replaced.” (Pls.’ SPROG Mot. 4:13–14.) In response, Defendant asserted objections based on relevance and overbreadth. (Ex B. to Meagle Decl., 23:18–24:22.)

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. 4:18–23.) Plaintiffs further argue that the “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 5:9–12.)

In opposition, Defendant argues that it “has now, in the spirit of cooperation and compromise, supplemented the four interrogatories allegedly at issue in this motion on or about May 9, 2025.” (Def.’s SPROG Opp. 3:23–24.) In reply, Plaintiffs maintain that “Although FCA has produced supplemental responses days before the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, the responses are deficient for several reasons.” (Pls.’ SPROG Reply 3:27–28.) “FCA’s responses merely states that it will produce documents the documents if they exist without stating that they do. And more importantly, it has not actually produced those documents at all and only agrees to produce them subject to a protective order. So the response is not responsive at all.” (Id. at 4:7–10.)

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendant’s supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatory Nos. 45–48 remain evasive. However, the Court finds that are not sufficiently tailored in scope. Accordingly, the Court limits the scope of the interrogatories to repairs of 2021 Ram 1500 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 Meagle Decl.) Defendant asserted relevance, ambiguity, and attorney work product privilege objections in response to RFP Nos. 45 and 46. (Ex. B to Meagle Decl. 31:1–32:7.) In opposition, Defendant asserts that it “has now, in the spirit of cooperation and compromise, supplemented the two (2) requests for production allegedly at issue in this motion concurrently herewith.” (Def.’s RFP Opp. 3:23–24.) Plaintiffs do not dispute that the supplemental responses they seek have now been served. Accordingly, the motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiffs’ RFP Nos. 45 and 46 is moot.

“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 request a total combined sum of $5,240.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant. (Meagle Decl. ¶¶ 8–10.) Defendant argues in opposition that no sanctions are warranted because they have provided supplemental responses to the subject discovery requests. In reply, Plaintiffs argue that “although FCA later served supplemental responses, it did so only days before the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion. So, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions should still be granted.” (Pls.’ RFP Reply 2:8–10.) The Court agrees and finds it reasonable to award Plaintiffs $300.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 45–48 is granted in part. The Court orders Defendant to provide further code-compliant responses to the subject interrogatories, as limited above, within 30 days. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiffs’ RFPs, Set One, Nos. 45–45 is off-calendar as moot. The Court issues monetary sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys in the amount of $300.00.