Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV00617, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23GDCV00617 Hearing Date: October 31, 2024 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 10/31/2024 – 8:30am
Case No. 23GDCV00617
Trial Date: 12/16/2024
Case Name: JOSE MEMBRENO, an individual, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive
TENTATIVE
RULING – COMPEL RESPONSES (Res ID 7080)
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Jose Membreno, filed a Complaint against Defendant, Ford Motor
Company, on 3/28/2023 alleging three causes of action for: (1) Violation of
Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of Song-Beverly
Act – Breach of Implied Warranty, and (3) Violation of Song-Beverly Act Section
1793.2.
RELIEF REQUESTED¿
“Plaintiff, JOSE MEMBRENO (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), will, and hereby do, move
for an order to compel responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Requests
for Production of Documents, Set Two (hereinafter “Discovery” or “RFPs”).
Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, was initially served
and propounded on Defendant by Plaintiff on August 7, 2024.
This Motion is made pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure, sections 2033.280, 2023.010, and 2023.030
on the basis that Plaintiff properly served upon Defendant, Requests for
Production of Documents, Set Two, and Defendant has failed to serve timely
responses. Plaintiff’s RFPs seek information directly relevant and material to
their claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Thus, Plaintiff
seeks an order compelling Defendant to produce responses, without objections,
within 10 calendar days of the Court’s order.
The Motion is based upon this
Notice, the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of
Gregory Sogoyan, the pleadings, and papers on file herein, and upon any other
matters that may be presented to the Court at the hearing.
No separate statement is being
submitted in support of the instant Motion, as it is not required pursuant to
rule 3.1345(b), of the California Rules of Court.”
(Pl. Mot. p. 2.)
Procedural
Moving Party: Plaintiff, Jose
Membreno
Responding Party: Defendant, Ford Motor Company
Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Sogoyan Declaration; Proposed
Order
Opposition Papers: Opposition
Reply: Reply
16/21
Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): Ok
Correct Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): Yes/No – Plaintiff served the
instant motion on defense counsel via electronic mail. The email addresses
listed on Plaintiff’s proof of service for the instant motion does not match
defense counsel’s email address listed on eCourt. However, Defendant opposed
the instant motion; therefore, Defendant received notice of this motion.
LEGAL
STANDARD – COMPEL RESPONSES, INSPECTION DEMANDS
Within
30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or
sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of
the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response
on all other parties who have appeared in the action, unless on motion of the
party making the demand, the court has shortened the time for response, or
unless on motion of the party to whom the demand has been directed, the court
has extended the time for response. (CCP § 2031.260(a).)
If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying,
testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the
party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the
demand. (CCP § 2031.300(b).)
If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying,
testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the
party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is
directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege
or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section
2018.010). (CCP § 2031.300(a).) “The court, on motion, may relieve that
party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions
are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in
substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240,
and 2031.280. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result
of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 2031.300(a)(1)-(2).)
Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion
to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding
party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a
“meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v.
Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404
citing Weil and Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The
Rutter Group 2006) ¶¶ 8:1137 to 8:1144, pp. 8F-59 to 8F-60, ¶¶ 8:1483 to
8:1489, pp. 8H-29 to hH-30 (Weil & Brown).)
In
Opposition, Defendant argues that this Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion
because: Defendant did not realize the instant discovery had been served on
Defendant until it received the instant motion; Defendant has now served
responses that are substantially compliant; and because the failure to serve
timely responses was the result of mistake, inadvertence, and excusable
neglect.
In
reply, Plaintiff argues that under Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v.
Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407, untimely
responses from a party does not divest the trial court with authority to compel
responses.
Reply
also argues that in order for the Court to grant Defendant relief from waiver
of objections, Defendant must first file a motion for relief from waiver of
objections.
Discussion
The
Court will hear argument as to how the parties think this Court should rule on
this motion.
It
is clear that Defendant did not timely respond to the instant discovery;
Defendant did not provide responses within 30 days of service of the instant
discovery. Defendant only provided responses after the instant motion was
filed.
Therefore,
it is also clear that Defendant waived its objections to the instant discovery
requests.
Further,
Defendant’s arguments – that it should be relieved from waiver of objections
because it subsequently served responses that were substantially compliant and
because the failure to serve timely responses was the result of mistake,
inadvertence, or excusable – are unavailing.
Defendant’s motion for relief from waiver of
objections is not on calendar until 12/11/2024. Further, Defendant’s citation in
its Opposition to its Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections is
unavailing. The Court will not read Defendant’s motion pertaining to relief
from waiver of objections as that motion is not currently before this Court.
Further,
the Reply is correct to not that under Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc.
v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, the scenario
this Court faces today (untimely responses that were served before the hearing)
does not divest the trial court authority to hear and grant a motion to compel
responses under section 2030.290(b). (Sinaiko at p. 396.)
Sinaiko
helps
shed light on potential ways in which the Court can deal with the instant
scenario as described below:
Under section
2030.290, therefore, once a party has failed to serve timely interrogatory
responses, the trial court has the authority to hear a propounding party's
motion to compel responses under section 2030.290, subdivision (b),
regardless of whether a party serves an untimely response. If a party fails to
serve a timely response to interrogatories, then by operation of law, all
objections that it could assert to those interrogatories are waived. (§
2030.290, subd. (a).) Unless that party obtains relief from its waiver, the
propounding party is entitled to move under subdivision (b) for an order
compelling the response to which the propounding party is entitled—that is, a
response without objection, and that substantially complies with the provisions
governing the form (§ 2030.210) and completeness (§ 2030.220) of interrogatory
responses.
The
question we address is the extent of the trial court's authority under section
2030.290, subdivision (b), not whether relief should be granted in a particular
case. If a party provides an untimely interrogatory response that does not
contain objections and that sets forth legally valid responses to each interrogatory,
the untimely response might completely or substantially resolve the issues
raised by a motion to compel responses under section 2030.290. Even in
such cases, however, the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.
(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1030(a) [“The court may award
sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to
compel discovery, even though ... the requested discovery was provided to the
moving party after the motion was filed”].) 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. In many cases involving untimely responses, the
propounding party will take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the
issue of sanctions. If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however,
the trial court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial court might
compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have
been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to
compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose
sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section
2030.300 and either determine that further answers are required,14 or
order the propounding party to “meet and confer” (§ 2030.300, subd. (b)) and
file a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1020(a)(2), (c)); or it
might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to
file a motion under section 2030.300.
(Sinaiko
Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148
Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409.)
Therefore,
the Court will hear argument as to what these parties think the best way for
this Court to proceed is.
Typically,
the Court would deny the motion as moot as to the responses, but the Court
would not deny the motion as moot as to sanctions. Here, Plaintiff does not
seek sanctions.
Plaintiff
is correct to note that Defendant waived objections, and that the motion for
relief from wavier of objections has not come on calendar yet.
However,
the Court doesn’t want to overcomplicate the initial responses that would be
circulating about.
On
the one hand, if this Court compels initial responses without objections, then
there would be two sets of initial responses to the same set of discovery.
Further, if the Court grants the motion for relief from waiver of objections,
then the Court would have to note that the first set of initial responses containing
objections are the initial responses that are valid.
On
the other hand, if the Court compels initial responses without objections here,
then there would be two sets of initial responses to the same set of discovery,
and if the Court denies the motion for relief from waiver of objections, then
the Court would have to note that the second set of initial responses
containing no objections are the initial responses that are valid.
Alternatively,
it seems that depending on the ruling on the motion for relief from waiver of
objections, Plaintiff could file a motion to compel further responses. If the
relief from waiver motion is denied, Plaintiff could file a motion to compel
further responses and argue how objections were waived and Defendant has to
provide responses without objection. If the relief from waiver is granted, then
presumably Plaintiff would not need to file a motion to compel further on the
grounds that the objections were not valid.
Alternatively,
the Court is open to hearing if it can strike the objections in the current responses,
and if the motion for relief from waiver of objections is granted, it can “unstrike”
the objections. That way there won’t be two sets of initial responses in
circulation. Likewise, if the motion for relief from waiver of objections is
denied, the Court can either note that objections are still stricken, or compel
initial responses without objections.
The
parties should also be prepared to address the fact that the motion for relief
from waiver of objections is on calendar for 12/11/2024, yet the trial is
scheduled for 12/16/2024.
Sanctions - Inspection Demands
In relevant part, § 2031.300(c) states as follows:
Except as provided
in subdivision (d), 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 a response to a demand for inspection,
copying, testing, or sampling, 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 § 2031.300(c).)
“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).)
Here, none of the parties requested sanctions.