Case Number: 20STCV42495    Hearing Date: April 10, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Plaintiffs Ivy Flores and Amanda Portobanco (“Plaintiffs”) sue Defendant Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (“Mazda”) and Does 1 through 20 pursuant to a Complaint alleging two Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA” lemon law) claims and an Unfair Competition claim pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., as premised on allegations that on April 12, 2018, Plaintiffs purchased a new 2018 Mazda CX-5 (“Subject Vehicle”), with which Plaintiff received various express warranties from Mazda, only for the Subject Vehicle to exhibit or develop powertrain control module and transmission defects, acceleration issues, rear shock leaking, seatbelt malfunctions, abnormal noises, bouncy suspension, Bluetooth connectivity issues, lack of power, and startup issues, with Mazda’s authorized repair and service facilities failing to conform the Subject Vehicle to applicable warranties.

On October 10, 2022, Plaintiffs moved to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 and sought sanctions per Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 in the amount of $4,005. Mazda opposed and sought sanctions against Plaintiffs and their attorneys in the amount of $2,137.50. Plaintiffs filed a reply. The motion was set for hearing on April 10, 2023.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories

Legal Standard

A motion to compel a further response is used when a party gives unsatisfactory answers or makes untenable objections to interrogatories, demands to produce, or requests for admission. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a), 2033.290, subd. (a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403 [interrogatories and demands to produce].) To compel a further response to interrogatories, the movant can show that: (1) the responding party’s answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1)); (2) the responding party’s exercise of the option to produce documents in response to an interrogatory was unwarranted or the required specification of those documents was inadequate (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(2)); and (3) the responding party’s objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(3); see, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550 [defendant’s argument that plaintiff was required to establish good cause or prove merits of underlying claim before propounding interrogatories without merit].)

 Order Compelling Further Responses: DENIED.

The sole issue in this motion to compel is whether Defendant’s response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 is adequate.  That interrogatory asks if “your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories [i]s an unqualified admission?” And if not, the Interrogatory asks for additional information, including facts upon which the party bases its response, names and contact information of witnesses, and documents that support the response.

In this case, Plaintiffs set forth Defendant’s responses in full in both the motion and the Separate Statement as follows:

See [Mazda]’s objection to request for admission nos. 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, and 79.”

However, nowhere in Plaintiffs’ motion or in Plaintiffs’ separate statement do Plaintiffs set forth what those requests for admissions are, or what Mazda’s objections to those requests for admissions are.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 subdivision (c) states that “[a] separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.  Material must not be incorporated . . . by reference.” (Italics added.)

If that were not clear enough, rule 3.1345 subdivision (c)(5) specifically provides that “If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth.”  (Italics added.)

In this case, Plaintiffs do not come close to complying with this requirement.  Not only do Plaintiffs fail to set out the requests for admissions 69-79 and Mazda’s objections thereto, they do not attach the requests and responses, and they do not even analyze the specifics of those requests either in their Separate Statement or in their motion.

While failure to comply with a rule or statute is not always a sufficient ground to justify ruling against a party, in this case, the Court declines to overlook such a basic principle where it is precluded from knowing the substance of these requests and responses by the inadequate motion and separate statement.

Nor does the fact that Plaintiffs filed other motions, at or about the same time and dealing with other discovery, including motions to be heard next week, excuse Plaintiffs’ failure to file a complete motion and separate statement. This Court is not obligated to undergo a search of the docket to try to find exhibits that will assist the Court to make sense of Plaintiffs’ motion. Nor is the Court obligated to peruse the opposition to this motion and its exhibits or the reply to try to make sense of the motion, particularly when Plaintiffs argue for the first time in their reply about matters that Defendants have had no opportunity to respond to. (Balboa Ins. Co. v. Aguirre (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1010.)

Sanctions: GRANTED against Plaintiffs in the amount of $2,137.50; DENIED as against Defendants.

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further 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.

            Plaintiffs’ motion patently failed to comply with the Rules of Court and did not contain enough information for the Court to be able to rule on it, relying on the reply to provide any argument as to the content of the requests for admissions that the Form Interrogatory was based on. Plaintiffs’ motion could not be granted as presented.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs Ivy Flores and Amanda Portobanco’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to  Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 is DENIED.

Defendant Mazda Motor of America, Inc.’s request for sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel is GRANTED in the amount of $2,137.50 with the sanctions to be paid within 30 days.