Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV32228, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32228    Hearing Date: May 3, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Plaintiff Ahmad Chiha sues Defendants Aston Martin Lagonda of North America, Inc. (Defendant or Aston Martin Lagonda) and Does 1 through 100 pursuant to an August 31, 2021 Complaint alleging three lemon law claims: (1) Breach of Implied Warranty; (2) Breach of Express Warranty; and (3) Violation of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act [Refund-or-Replace Provision]. The claims arise from allegations that Plaintiff Chiha purchased a new 2021 Aston Martin DB 11 (Vehicle) subject to an express warranty from Defendant Aston Martin Lagonda but that at the time the Vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff, it was not in merchantable condition, was not safe, and did not conform to the quality and safety guidelines for a new motor vehicle—i.e., had multiple manufacturer defects, defects in assembly, design defects, and other defects—and that, despite a reasonable number of attempts, Aston Martin Lagonda was unable to conform the Vehicle to express warranty.

On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel served on Defendant a set of Form Interrogatories–General. (Mot., Barry Decl., Ex. 1.)

On February 6, 2023, Defendant served unverified responses thereto, with verification following on February 7, 2023. (Mot., Barry Decl., Exs. 2-3.)

Between February 8 and 28, 2023, the parties met and conferred regarding further responses as to some of the interrogatories served by Plaintiff on Defendant. (Mot., Barry Decl., Exs. 4-5, 8-9.)

Shortly before, on February 21, 2023, Defendant served unverified supplemental responses to the form interrogatories, providing verification therefor on March 3, 2023. (Mot., Barry Decl., Exs. 6-7.)

On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff Chiha made this motion to compel further responses as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.

On April 20, 2023, Defendant Aston Martin Lagonda opposed the March 28th motion.

On April 26, 2023, Plaintiff Chiha replied to the April 20th opposition.

The motion to compel further interrogatory responses is now before the Court.

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 Interrogatory Responses: GRANTED, in Part; DENIED, in Part.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s discovery requests are mostly reasonable but that some of the interrogatory responses by Defendant were sufficiently code compliant. The Court therefore GRANTS this motion, in Part, and orders the following discovery order:

Defendant Aston Martin Lagonda shall produce further responses to Interrogatory No. 17.1 vis-à-vis RFA Nos. 1, 3, 15-20, and 23-24, specifically as to questions (b)-(d) in Interrogatory No. 17.1, where (1) responses to question (b) need more detail, (2) “Defendant AMLNA” as a response to question (c) does not reasonably identify the names, addresses, or phone numbers of PERSONS with knowledge of the facts recited in question (b), and (3) “N/A” as a response to question (d) is wholly evasive without further explanatory detail. (See Mot., Separate Statement, RFA Nos. 1, 15, 16, and 3, 17-20, 24.; see also Opp’n, Douglas Decl., Ex. B.)

The motion is otherwise DENIED, in Part, specifically as to further responses to Interrogatory No. 17.1 vis-à-vis RFA Nos. 4, 8, 12, 21, and 27-83, where the interrogatory response to these requests (see Mot., Separate Statement, Nos. 4, 8, 12, 21, 27-83) sufficiently (a) states the number of the request at issue, (b) states the facts upon which Defendant bases its response, (c) states the names, addresses, and numbers of persons who have knowledge of the facts responsive to question (b), and (d) identifies already-produced Exhibits B, C, D, and E as the documents supporting Defendant’s responses. (Mot., Separate Statement, p. 4; Opp’n, Douglas Decl., Ex. B, pp. 6-7.) Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary in the motion and separate statement are too generalized for the Court to conclude otherwise. (See Mot., pp. 6-9; Mot., Separate Statement, pp. 5-6.)

No further responses are requested as to Interrogatory No. 17.1 vis-à-vis RFA Nos. 2, 5-7, 9-11, 13-14, 22-23, and 25-26, leading the Court to conclude that Defendant Aston Martin Lagonda made unqualified admissions to these requests for admission. (Compare Opp’n, Douglas Decl., Ex. A, RFA Nos. 2, 5-7, 9-11, 13-14, 22-23, 25-26, with Mot., Separate Statement, pp. 2-6.) Regardless, because the briefing does not put these admission requests at issue in relation to Interrogatory No. 17.1 (see Mot., Separate Statement, pp. 2-6), the Court need not rule on such issues.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Ahmad Chiha’s Motion to Compel Further Supplemental Response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 is GRANTED in Part and DENIED in Part as follows:

(1) GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 17.1 vis-à-vis RFA Nos. 1, 3, 15-20, and 23-24, specifically as to questions (b)-(d) in Interrogatory No. 17.1; and

(2) DENIED as to Interrogatory No. 17.1 vis-à-vis RFA Nos. 4, 8, 12, 21, and 27-83.

Defendant Aston Martin Lagonda is ORDERED TO PROVIDE supplemental responses in conformity with this order WITHIN 15 DAYS of notice of this order.