Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 22GDCV00889, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCV00889    Hearing Date: March 7, 2024    Dept: E

Hearing Date: 03/08/2024 – 8:30am Case No: 23GDCV00889 Trial Date: UNSET Case Name: DANITZA MARAVILLA TORRES aka DANITZA MARAVILLA; and ANDRES MORALES RIOS v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; GLENDALE DODGE, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company dba GLENDALE DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP RAM; and DOES 1-10

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiffs, Danitza Maravilla Torres, aka Danitza Maravilla, and Andres Morales Rios, move the Court for an order compelling further responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,610.00 against Defendant FCA US LLC and its attorneys of record, Ongaro P.C.

“This motion is made on the grounds that Defendant FCA US LLC has not provided Code-compliant responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production numbers 45-46 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310.

This motion is based upon the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, the Declaration of Zachary Powell, the Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute, the papers and records on file, and upon such oral and documentary evidence that may be presented at the hearing on this matter.”

BACKGROUND On 05/02/2023, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants FCA US LLC and Glendale Dodge LLC dba Glendale Dodge Chrysler Jeep.

The first two causes of action – (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, and (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Section 1793.2 – are alleged against Defendant FCA US LLC

The third cause of action for negligent repair is alleged against Glendale Dodge LLC.

This action involves a 2017 Dodge Charger.

PROCEDURAL

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Responding Party: Defendant, FCA US LLC

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok Proper Address (CCP §1013, §1013a, §1013b): The moving papers were not served on the email address listed for Defendant’s counsel on eCourt. Moving papers were served to

lvawter@ongaropc.co; however, eCourt indicates that Defendant’s counsel’s email address is lvawter@ongaropc.com. However, since an Opposition was submitted, it appears as if Defendant received the moving papers.

Moving Papers: Notice; Motion; Separate Statement; Powell Declaration; Proposed Order

Opposition Papers: Opposition; Separate Statement

Reply Papers: Reply

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The Section specifically provides that “[d]iscovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery “may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that a party demanding a document inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that:

“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

Under CCP § 2031.310 (b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”

“In the more specific context of a demand for production of a tangible thing, the party who asks the trial court to compel production must show “good cause” for the request—but unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

PROCEDURAL ANALYSIS

45-Day Requirement Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand. (CCP § 2031.310(c).)

Plaintiffs argue that this motion had to be filed on January 22, 2024 and that since it was filed by January 22, 2024, it is thus timely. Defendant does not argue that the instant motion is untimely. Therefore, the Court finds this motion timely.

Meet and Confer “The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(2).)

Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel alleged he met and conferred. (Powell Decl. ¶5, Ex. C.)

The Opposition argues that Plaintiffs’ counsel prematurely abandoned the meet-and-confer process, but the Court does not find this argument availing.

TENTATIVE RULING

The instant motion was filed by Plaintiffs on 1/22/2024.

Defendant provided supplemental responses to the instant RFPs – 45 and 46 – on February 20, 2024, and verifications to its supplemental responses on February 23, 2024.

Because Defendant provided supplemental responses to the instant requests, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFPs 45 and 46, Set One, is DENIED as moot as to compelling further responses.

However, this motion is not denied as moot as to the issue of sanctions since Defendant provided supplemental responses only after the Plaintiffs had filed the instant motion.

Sanctions “Except as provided in subdivision (j), 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 further response to a demand, 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.” (CCP §2031.310(h).)

“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(a).)

Plaintiffs request an award of monetary sanctions against FCA and its counsel of record, Ongaro P.C in the amount of $2,610.00.

Plaintiffs’ counsel requests sanctions as follows:

9. As a result of Defendant’s failure to provide Code-compliant responses and the time and effort it took Plaintiffs to meet and confer, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court award monetary sanctions for the costs associated with Plaintiffs’ preparation of this motion. The total legal fees incurred of preparing the motion and supportive papers will be as follows:

a. I spent two (2.0) hours drafting the instant motion, separate statement, proposed order, notice of motion, and declaration, at my normal billing rate of $425.00 per hour, for a total of $850.00.

b. It is also reasonably anticipated that I will spend an additional two hours reviewing Defendant’s opposition and drafting a reply at my normal billing rate of $425.00 per hour, for a total of $850.00.

c. Finally, it is reasonably anticipated I will spend an additional two hours preparing for and attending the scheduled hearing on this matter at my normal billing rate of $425.00, for a total of $850.00

d. In all, legal fees will total $2,550.00.

10. Our office will be forced to spend $60.00 in filing the instant motion.

(Powell Decl. ¶¶9-10.)

In Opposition, Defendant argues against sanctions on the basis that Plaintiffs had no reasonable grounds to bring the motion. Defendant also argues it substantively complied in producing responsive documents and contends its prior objections were valid. Defendant also argues that it supplemented its responses.

Reply argues it was forced to file this motion because supplemental responses were not filed until after Plaintiffs were forced to file this motion.

The Court will hear argument as to sanctions.