Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV13646, Date: 2024-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13646    Hearing Date: April 17, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

Plaintiffs Gerardo Monroy and Patricia Mascorro Monroy sue Defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc., and Does 1 through 10 pursuant to a June 14, 2023, Complaint alleging claims of (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty, and (3) Violation the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2.

The claims arise from the following allegations. On February 17, 2021, Plaintiffs purchased a 2020 Honda Accord (the Subject Vehicle or Vehicle). Honda warranted the Subject Vehicle and agreed to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of Plaintiffs’ vehicle or to provide compensation if there was a failure in such utility or performance. The Subject Vehicle was delivered to Plaintiffs with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to, suspension, electrical, and structural system defects. Plaintiffs delivered the Vehicle to an authorized Honda repair facility for repair of the nonconformities, which Honda was unable to repair back to the applicable express warranty after a reasonable number of attempts. Honda has nevertheless refused to replace the Vehicle or refund Plaintiffs’ expenses.

B. Relevant Procedural History

On September 19, 2023, Honda served its first set of written discovery on the Monroy Plaintiffs, which included identical Form Interrogatories – General, Set No. One (FROGs, Set One) and Special Interrogatories, Set Number One (SROGs, Set One) as to Plaintiffs Patricia and Gerardo Monroy.

On October 25, 2023, Plaintiffs served responses to Honda’s discovery, including responses to FROGs, Set One, and SROGs, Set One.

On December 7, 2023, Honda’s counsel emailed a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding deficient discovery responses.

No further correspondence was exchanged between the parties.

C. Motions Before the Court

On December 12, 2023, Honda filed a motion to compel further responses to FROGs, Set One, Nos. 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 from Plaintiff Patricia Monroy. The motion includes a $1,572.50 request for sanctions against Patricia and counsel of record. The motion was set for hearing on March 18, 2024.

That same day, Honda filed a motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff Patricia Monroy regarding SROGs, Set One, Nos. 16-18, 33-38, 46-47, 50-52, 59-60, and 76-79. The motion includes a $1,572.50 request for sanctions against Patricia and counsel of record. The motion was set for hearing on March 18, 2024.

On January 11, 2024, Honda filed a motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff Gerardo Monroy regarding SROGs, Set One, Nos. 16-18, 33-38, 46-47, 50-52, 59-60, and 76-79. The motion includes a $1,572.50 request for sanctions against Gerardo and counsel of record. The motion was set for hearing on April 17, 2024.

That same day, Honda filed a motion to compel further responses to FROGs, Set One, Nos. 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 from Plaintiff Gerardo Monroy. The motion includes a $1,572.50 request for sanctions against Gerardo and counsel of record. The motion was set for hearing on April 17, 2024.

On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff Patricia Monroy filed oppositions to Honda’s motions to compel further responses to FROGs, Set One, and SROGs, Set One.

On March 11, 2024, Plaintiff Gerardo Monroy filed oppositions to Honda’s motions to compel further responses to FROGs, Set One, and SROGs, Set One.

On March 12, 2024, Honda filed replies to Plaintiff Patricia Monroy’s oppositions.

On March 14, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to continue the hearings for the four interrogatory motions to April 17, 2024.

On March 18, 2024, the Court ordered the hearings continued to April 17, 2024.

On April 10, 2024, Honda filed replies to Plaintiff Gerardo Monroy’s oppositions.

Honda’s motions are now before the Court.

II. Further Interrogatory Responses, Requests for Sanctions

A. Note on Discussion – Identical Papers as to Both Plaintiffs, Same Analysis

A review of the discovery served on Plaintiffs, the moving papers, the opposition papers, and the reply papers for the four motions before the Court shows that the papers related to Plaintiff Patricia Monroy mirror those related to Plaintiff Gerardo Monroy. Indeed, the points and authorities, declarations, exhibits, and/or separate statement for the FROGs and SROGs motions, oppositions, and replies are nearly identical, only deviating, for example, to identify the responding party (Patricia or Gerardo), the responding party’s sex or gender (her or him; her or his), or an exhibit differing between Plaintiffs (e.g., FROGs, Set One, as served on one or the other).

Accordingly, the Court discusses FROGs, Set One, and SROGs, Set One, simultaneously and, unless otherwise noted, without distinction between Plaintiff Patricia Monroy and Gerardo Monroy.

B. Motions to Compel Further Interrogatory Responses: MOOT in part; GRANTED in part.

1. 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 (Sinaiko [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]).

2. Parties’ Arguments

The Monroy Plaintiffs’ oppositions argue that Honda’s motions would be mooted by supplemental responses to the interrogatories at issue here prior to the hearing on Honda’s motions. Honda’s reply confirms that Plaintiffs did serve supplemental responses on March 4, 2024, but also argues that Honda’s motion should not automatically be considered moot, with the Court instead to undertake an analysis of whether evasive and incomplete responses are at issue here. Honda argues that Plaintiffs provided at page 3 of their opposition an inaccurate quote from Sinaiko, supra, which does not appear in the case. (Reply at pp. 2-3.) The reply does not otherwise address how the March 4, 2024, discovery is evasive or incomplete.

3. Court’s Determination, FROGs, Set One

The Court agrees that it can undertake an analysis of whether the Monroy Plaintiffs’ supplemental responses to FROGs, Set One, Nos. 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 are deficient and amount to nothing more than an attempt to facially satisfy obligations under the Code while avoiding this Court’s scrutiny on those discovery obligations based on “mootness.” The Court admonishes the Plaintiffs to cite-check their work, as indeed the alleged quote from Sinaiko does not appear in that case. In these days of AI, courts must be diligent to ensure that cases are accurately represented. Nonetheless, the holding in Sinaiko is sufficiently similar to the alleged quote so as not to justify sanctions at this time. (Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 [“Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is a matter best determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the circumstances of the case”].)

The Court next determines that Plaintiffs’ supplemental March 4, 2024, responses to FROGs, Set One, Nos. 2.2, 2.3, 2.5 (Gerardo Monroy only; see below two paragraphs), 2.6, and 2.7, are responsive and provide all the information required of those interrogatories. (FROGs Opp’ns, Grigoryan Decls., Exs. 1.) Honda’s motion as to these interrogatories is thus MOOT.

The Court, however, GRANTS Honda’s motion as to FROGs, Set One, No. 2.5(c), only as to Plaintiff Patricia Monroy, to permit her to clarify her dates of residence for the addresses listed in subds. (a)-(b), which are presently contradictory. (CRS# 1968 FROGs Mot., Grigoryan Decl., Ex. 1.)

Honda’s motion re: Patrica Monroy and FROGs, Set One, is otherwise MOOT as to SROGs, Set One, No. 2.5(a)-(b). (CRS# 1968 FROGs Mot., Grigoryan Decl., Ex. 1.)

Summarized, Honda’s motions are (1) MOOT as to FROGs, Set One, Nos. 2.2, 2.3, 2.5(a)-(b), 2.6, and 2.7 as against Patricia Monroy, (2) GRANTED as to FROGs, Set One, No. 2.5(c) as against Patricia Monroy, and (3) MOOT as to FROGs, Set One, Nos. 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 as against Gerardo Monroy.

4. Court’s Determination, SROGs, Set One

The Court agrees that it can undertake an analysis of whether the Monroy Plaintiffs’ supplemental responses to SROGs, Set One, Nos. 16-18, 33-38, 46-47, 50-52, 59-60, and 76-79 are deficient and amount to nothing more than an attempt to facially satisfy obligations under the Code while avoiding this Court’s scrutiny on those discovery obligations based on “mootness.”

The Court next determines that Plaintiffs’ supplemental March 4, 2024, responses to SROGs, Set One, Nos. 16-18, 33-38, 46-47, 50-52, 59-60, and 76-79, are responsive and provide all the information required of those interrogatories. (SROGs Opp’ns, Grigoryan Decl., Exs. 1.) Honda’s motions as to these interrogatories are thus MOOT.

C. Requests for Sanctions: DENIED.

1. Legal Standard

The court must 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

2. Court’s Determination

The Court finds that the imposition of sanctions here would be unjust.

While Honda raises valid points regarding delay by the Monroy Plaintiffs in this action, the Court can accept that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s conduct has been made in good faith. Plaintiffs’ counsel at issue (Chris Grigoryan) began working on this case only after Honda’s counsel sought to meet and confer on December 7, 2023, with Honda sending the letter to another lawyer at Grigoryan’s firm. Grigoryan was thus unaware of the discovery deadline and this motion until shortly prior to the opposition being due. Grigoryan thereafter promptly provided sufficient Code-complaint verified responses. (Opp’ns, Grigoryan Decls., ¶¶ 8, Exs. 1.) The Court takes these representations at face value. Under such circumstances, sanctions would work an injustice rather than promote the purposes of discovery, which, as discussed above, have been satisfied through the March 4, 2024, responses.

Sanctions are thus DENIED.

III. Conclusion

A. FROGs, Set One, Patricia Monroy

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Patricia Mascorro Monroy to Provide Further Responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, and Request for Sanctions [CRS# 1968] is:

(1) MOOT as to Form Interrogatories – General, Set No. One, Nos. 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5(a)-(b), 2.6, and 2.7;

(2) GRANTED as to Form Interrogatories – General, Set No. One, No. 2.5(c); and

(3) DENIED as to monetary sanctions.

B. SROGs, Set One, Patricia Monroy

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Patricia Mascorro Monroy to Provide Further Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, and Request for Sanctions [CRS# 9876] is:

(1) MOOT as to Special Interrogatories, Set Number One, Nos. 16-18, 33-38, 46-47, 50-52, 59-60, and 76-79; and

(2) DENIED as to monetary sanctions.

C. SROGs, Set One, Gerardo Monroy

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Gerardo Monroy to Provide Further Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, and Request for Sanctions [CRS# 6453] is:

(1) MOOT as to Special Interrogatories, Set Number One, Nos. 16-18, 33-38, 46-47, 50-52, 59-60, and 76-79; and

(2) DENIED as to monetary sanctions.

D. FROGs, Set One, Gerardo Monroy

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Gerardo Monroy to Provide Further Responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, and Request for Sanctions [CRS# 2230] is:

(1) MOOT as to Form Interrogatories – General, Set No. One, Nos. 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7; and

(2) DENIED as to monetary sanctions.