Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV08765, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08765    Hearing Date: February 7, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Pleadings

Plaintiff Sonia Maravilla sues Defendants FCA US LLC (FCA US) and Does 1 through 10 pursuant to an April 20, 2023 Complaint alleging Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (SBA) claims of (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 Warranty, Civil Code Section 1791.2 Subdivision (a); Section 1794, and (5) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Civil Code Section 1791.1; Section 1794.

On June 1, 2023, FCA US filed an Answer to Complaint.

Motion Before the Court

On August 11, 2023, Plaintiff Maravilla served various discovery requests on Defendant FCA US: (1) Form Interrogatories – General, Set One (FROGs, Set One); (2) Special Interrogatories to Defendant, Set One (SROGs, Set One); (3) Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant, Set One (RPDs, Set One); and (4) Requests for Admission to Defendant, Set One (RFAs, Set One).

The discovery was served by email to two attorneys at Clark Hill LLP, counsel for FCA US (ehanson@clarkhill.com and vdao@clarkhill.com) and on a third Clark Hill email seemingly created for the purpose of “FCA” litigation (clarkhill.fca@clarkhill.com, which appears as the email for counsel in FCA US’s June 1, 2023 Answer).

Responses to this discovery were due on September 12, 2023.

On September 15, 2023, as a professional courtesy, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed FCA US’s counsel regarding the overdue responses, an email to which FCA US’s counsel did not respond.

On September 20, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel followed up with FCA US’s counsel, which responded that same day indicating that FCA would serve responses by October 4, 2023.

On November 7, 2023, Plaintiff sent another courtesy email regarding Defendant’s overdue responses, with FCA US’s counsel stating that FCA US thought that responses were served and that counsel would check the status with FCA US and forward responses to Plaintiff’s counsel.

On December 8, 2023, due to ongoing nonresponse from FCA US, Plaintiff filed a motion to (1) compel initial discovery responses to FROGs, Set One, SROGs, Set One, and RPDs, Set One, and (2) deem RFAs, Set One, admitted against FCA US. The motion does not request monetary sanctions and was served by email to the same three email addresses where the discovery at issue was served.

Despite a facially valid proof of service, FCA US has failed to oppose Plaintiff’s motion, which is now before the Court.

Motion to Compel Initial Responses and to Deem Admissions Admitted

I.

Legal Standard – Compel Initial Responses

A motion to compel an initial response can be made on the ground that a party did not serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand to produce. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (a) [demand to produce]; see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 (Sinaiko).) To establish this ground, a movant must show:

(1) Proper service (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.080, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.040 [demand to produce]);

(2) Expiration of the deadline for the initial response 30 days after service or on date agreed to by parties (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subds. (a), (b) [interrogatories], 2031.260, subds. (a), (b) [demand to produce]); and

(3) No timely response (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290 [interrogatories], 2031.300 [demand to produce]).

A court must deny a motion to compel initial discovery where the discovery sought is outside the scope of discovery. (See CBS, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19; see also Code. Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 [scope of discovery].)

Order Compelling Initial Discovery Responses: GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s motion attaches evidence showing proper service of FROGs, Set One, SROGs, Set One, and RPDs, Set One, on FCA US. (Mot., Xie Decl., Ex. 1, RPDs, Set One, SROGs, Set One, and FROGs, Set One, Proofs of Service.)

Plaintiff’s motion attaches evidence showing expiration of the deadline to respond. (Mot., Xie Decl., ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff’s motion attaches evidence showing no timely response has been made by FCA US. (Mot., Xie Decl., ¶¶ 4-11.)

A review of FROGs, Set One, SROGs, Set One, and RPDs, Set One shows that the requests are within the scope of discovery. These interrogatories and production requests relate to, among other things, the subject vehicle at issue in this litigation and to information for other vehicles of the same year, make, and/or model. Such discovery, for example, could lead to a determination that FCA US was aware of non-conformable defects in the subject vehicle and nevertheless failed to comply with its statutory requirement to repurchase or replace that vehicle.

Plaintiff’s motion is therefore GRANTED as to FROGs, Set One, SROGs, Set One, and RPDs, Set One.

II. Deem RFAs, Set One, Admitted

Legal Standard

The discovering party can make a motion to deem as admitted any unanswered requests for admission or any requests answered in a late or unverified response. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240, subd. (a) [RFA responses must be signed by responding party under oath]; see Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [unsworn response to RFAs is treated like no response].) These requests are not automatically deemed admitted; the discovery party must make the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

To establish this ground, a movant must show:

(1) Proper service (see Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.070);

(2) Expiration of the deadline for the initial response 30 days after service or on date agreed to by parties (see Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subds. (a), (b)); and

(3) That (a) the responding party served no response (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b)), (b) the propounding party served a late response (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b)); or (3) the responding party served an unsworn response (see Appleton v. Superior Court, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at p. 636 [unsworn response to RFAs is treated like no response]).

A court must deny a motion to compel initial discovery where the discovery sought is outside the scope of discovery. (See CBS, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 263 Cal.App.2d at p. 19; see also Code. Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 [scope of discovery].)

Order Deeming RFAs Admitted: GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s motion attaches evidence showing proper service of RFAs, Set One, on FCA US. (Mot., Xie Decl., Ex. 1, RFA, Set One, Proof of Service.)

Plaintiff’s motion attaches evidence showing expiration of the deadline to respond. (Mot., Xie Decl., ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff’s motion attaches evidence showing no timely response has been made by FCA US. (Mot., Xie Decl., ¶¶ 4-11.)

A review of RFAs, Set One, shows that the requests are within the scope of discovery. These admission requests relate to, among other things, the subject vehicle at issue in this litigation and to information for other vehicles of the same year, make, and/or model. Such discovery could, for example, lead to a determination that FCA US was aware of non-conformable defects in the subject vehicle and nevertheless failed to comply with its statutory requirement to repurchase or replace that vehicle.

Plaintiff’s motion is therefore GRANTED as to RFAs, Set One. 

Conclusion

Plaintiff Sonia Maravilla’s Motion to Compel Responses to Set One of Plaintiff’s Discovery is GRANTED.

Defendant FCA US LLC is ORDERED to provide objection-free, Code-compliant responses to (1) Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, (2) Special Interrogatories to Defendant, Set One, and (3) Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant, Set One, within 14 days of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subds. (a), (b), 2031.300, subds. (a), (b).)

The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in Requests for Admission to Defendant, Set One, are DEEMED ADMITTED against Defendant FCA US LLC. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a), (b).)