Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV00472, Date: 2024-09-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV00472    Hearing Date: September 5, 2024    Dept: E

Hearing Date: 09/05/2024 – 8:30am
Case No: 23GDCV00472
Trial Date: 10/07/2024
Case Name: EDWARD CIDA, an individual, and ERIKA YVETTE VAZQUEZ, an individual v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, Edward Cida and Erika Yvette Vazquez, filed this action on 3/9/2023. The Complaint alleges three causes of action. On May 21, 2020, Plaintiffs purchased a 2020 Ford Escape. These causes of action arise out of warranty and repair obligations of Ford Motor Company.

RELIEF REQUESTED
“Plaintiffs EDWARD CIDA AND ERIKA YVETTE VAZQUEZ (“Plaintiffs”) will, and hereby does, move for an order to strike Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”) objections and compel further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Request Nos. 1 through 101 (collectively, the “RFPs”).

Plaintiffs bring this Motion pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2031.310, and 2031.320, on the grounds that Defendant waived its objections and failed to provide adequate responses to Plaintiffs’ RFPs, which seek documents relevant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”) causes of action.”

(Pl. Mot. p. 2.)

Procedural

Moving Party: Plaintiffs, Edward Cida and Erika Yvette Vazquez
Responding Party: No Opposition by Defendant

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): No – The instant motion was served via electronic mail to Defendant at judd.gilefsky@lewisbrisbois.com and samantha.brigoni@lewisbrisbois.com. On eCourt, Defendant’s counsel’s email address is listed as Patrick.Allahverdian@lewisbrisbois.com. At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel should be prepared to address why it did not serve the email address that is listed on eCourt for Defendant’s counsel.

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

Opposition Papers: No Opposition

Reply Papers: No 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).)

Here, this motion appears 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 met and conferred. (Sogoyan Decl. ¶¶ 19-20.)

TENTATIVE RULING
The instant motion was served via electronic mail to Defendant at judd.gilefsky@lewisbrisbois.com and samantha.brigoni@lewisbrisbois.com. On eCourt, Defendant’s counsel’s email address is listed as Patrick.Allahverdian@lewisbrisbois.com. At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel should be prepared to address why it did not serve the email address that is listed on eCourt for Defendant’s counsel.

As a preliminary matter, in Plaintiffs’ “Definitions” section in its separate statement, Plaintiffs list the “subject vehicle” as a 2020 Honda Pilot bearing VIN: 1HGCV1F38NA026435. However, the Complaint lists the “subject vehicle” as a 2020 Ford Escape bearing VIN: 1FMCU0BZ2LUB49256.

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.)

As to the following RFPs in Set Two - 6, 7 ,8, 9, ,56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65,66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 83, 85, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 100 – the Court does not understand Plaintiffs’ explanation demonstrating good cause or relevance. As to these RFPs in Set Two, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is DENIED.

As to the following RFPs in Set Two – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 88, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99 , 101 – the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses as to these RFPs in Set Two.

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’ counsel did not request sanctions.