Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV00250, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV00250    Hearing Date: February 2, 2024    Dept: E

Hearing Date: 02/02/2024 – 8:30am
Case No: 23GDCV00250
Trial Date: 12/02/2024
Case Name: RAKEIA PRATT v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC.

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

BACKGROUND
On 02/07/2023, Plaintiff, Rakeia Pratt, filed a Complaint.

On 05/30/2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, alleging two causes of action – (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty

Plaintiff alleges that on March 20, 2021, they leased a 2021 Mercedes-Benz GLE450W4 (FAC ¶8.) Plaintiff alleges that the Subject Vehicle was delivered to them with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to, structural, transmission, and electrical system defects. (FAC ¶10.)

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff, Rakeia Pratt, (“Plaintiff”) will, and hereby does, move for an order to strike Defendant, MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC’s (“Defendant” or “MBUSA”) objections and compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1-32 (“RFPs”).

Plaintiff brings this Motion pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2031.310 , 2031.320 et seq., and 2031.240 et seq., on the grounds that Defendant failed to provide adequate responses and production to Plaintiff’s RFPs, which seek documents relevant to her Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“the Act”) causes of action.

Procedural

Moving Party: Plaintiff, Rakeia Pratt
Responding Party: Defendant, Mercedes-Benz, USA

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; Serrano Decl.; Separate Statement; Proposed Order; Supplemental Serrano Decl.;

Opposition Papers: Opposition; Bassi Decl.; Cinquepalmi Declaration; Separate Statement

Reply Papers: No Reply as of 1/30/2024, any such Reply would be late

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).)

Neither party addresses the 45-day requirement.

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 alleged it met and conferred. (Serrano Decl. ¶28-32.)

ANALYSIS

As a preliminary matter, this Court notes that the notice of motion states that this motion pertains to RFPs 1-32; however, the Separate Statement did not include RFPs 5, 6, or 10. Therefore, the Court will not address the RFPs that Plaintiff did not address in their Separate Statement.

TENTATIVE RULING(TR) RFPs 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 ,9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 32
Defendant’s objections are overruled. The objections did not comply with 2031.240. Defendant’s responses are evasive. If Defendant is stating it is complying in full in any of its responses, it needs to comply with 2031.220. If Defendant is stating its inability to comply in any of its responses, it needs to comply with 2031.230.

Motion to compel further response to RFPs 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 32 is GRANTED.

TR 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
Defendant’s objections on overly broad are sustained.

“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.)

Here, the Court fails to see how Plaintiff attempts to explain good cause because the instant request dates back to 2017.

Motion to compel further responses to RFPs 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 is DENIED.

TR 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
Defendant’s objections on overly broad are sustained.  

“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.)

The Court fails to see how Plaintiff attempts to explain good cause because the instant requests do not pertain to vehicles of the same make, model, and year as the subject vehicle, nor is the request limited to California.

Motion to compel further responses to RFPs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 is DENIED.

TR 31
The Court will hear argument as to RFP 31.

OVERALL AS TO ALL TENTATIVE RULINGS
For those RFPs in which the Court is compelling a further response, Defendant is to provide a verified, code compliant, further response, without objection, within 10 days of this hearing.

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).)

No sanctions were requested by either party.