Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV00226, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV00226    Hearing Date: November 3, 2023    Dept: E

Case Name: MILARGO J. REYNOSO, an individual; v. FCA US LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive

Hearing Date: 11/03/2023 – 10:00am
Case No: 23GDCV00226
Trial Date: 11/25/2024

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff, Milagro J. Reynoso moves for an order to strike Defendant FCA US LLC’s objections and compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Numbers 16-21.

Plaintiff moves pursuant to CCP §2031.310 on the grounds that Defendant has failed to provide adequate responses to Plaintiff’s requests, which seek documents directly relevant to her claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Procedural

Moving Party: Plaintiff, Milagro J. Reynoso
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): Ok

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Separate Statement; Cao Declaration; Proposed Order;

Opposition Papers: Opposition; Separate Statement; Van Declaration;

Reply Papers: Reply

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed its Complaint on 02/03/2023. The caption of the Complaint states, “Complaint for Violation of Statutory Obligations (Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act CA Civil Code §§1790-1795.8.)

Although the caption does not list the causes of action, the body of the Complaint lists the following causes of action: (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 Written 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.

Plaintiff alleges that on or about October 10, 2019, Plaintiff purchased or leased a 2019 Alfa Romeo Giulia manufactured by Defendant FCA. Plaintiff alleges that during the warranty period, the subject vehicle contained or developed defects, including, but not limited to the following: defective engine system; defective safety system; defective steering system; defective fuel system; defective electrical system; defective brake system; and any additional complaints made by Plaintiff, whether or not they are contained in the records or on any repair orders.

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).)

Here, the parties don’t dispute the timeliness of this motion. 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, Movant’s counsel sufficiently met and conferred. (Decl. Cao ¶19-20.)

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.)

TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant’s counsel indicates that it provided supplemental responses and verifications to the supplemental responses on October 25, 2023. The instant motion was filed on 08/08/2023; therefore, the supplemental responses were provided after the filing of this motion.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Numbers 16-21 is DENIED as moot; however, the issue of sanctions would not be moot.

To the extent Plaintiff has issues with the supplemental responses that were provided after the filing of this motion, those issues are not before this Court.

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).)

The issue of sanctions will be taken up at the hearing.