Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV00839, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23GDCV00839 Hearing Date: May 30, 2024 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 05/30/2024 – 8:30am
Case No: 23GDCV00839
Trial Date: Not set
Case Name: SABRINA IVONNE PEREZ v. FCA US, LLC
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
Moving Party: Plaintiff Sabrina Ivonne Perez
Responding Party: Unopposed
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
Opposition Papers: None
Reply Papers: None
Plaintiff SABRINA IVONNE PEREZ (“Plaintiff”) will, and hereby does, move the Court for an order compelling Defendant FCA US, LLC (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 7, 10, 16, 19, 21-23, 37, and 39.
This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2031.310 on the grounds that Defendant has served untimely responses asserting improper objections it has waived, Defendant has failed to provide adequate responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, and Defendant has refused to respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts all together. Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s further responses within 10 calendar days of the Court’s order.
BACKGROUND
This action arises from the purchase of an allegedly defective 2021 Jeep Wrangler (the “Subject Vehicle”). On April 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant FCA US, LLC (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) Violation of Subdivision (d) of Civ. Code § 1793.2; (2) Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civ. Code § 1793.2; (3) Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civ. Code § 1793.2; (4) Breach of Express Written Warranty; and (5) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability.
On June 12, 2023, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.
On April 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served the instant unopposed Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s responses to RFP Nos. 7, 10, 16, 19, 21-23, 37, and 39.
On May 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served a Notice of Defendant’s Non-Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, which indicates that as of May 22, 2024, Plaintiff has received no opposition from Defendant FCA to her motion.
Any opposition to the motion was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing under CCP § 1005(b). As of May 28, 2024, the motion is unopposed.
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court intends to GRANT the motion and order that Defendant provide verified, complete, code-compliant further responses, without objections, to Set One of Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Nos. 7, 10, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 37, and 39 within 30 days of the Court’s order.
ANALYSIS
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.”
Discussion
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 motion is timely as Defendant provided verifications to the discovery at issue on March 1, 2024 according to the declaration of Vanessa J. Olivia (“Olivia”) in support of the motion. (Olivia Decl., ¶ 17.)
Meet and Confer
“The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP §2031.310(b)(2).)
Here, the meet and confer requirement has been met. (Olivia Decl., ¶¶ 19-24; Exhs. 7-11.)
The RFPs at Issue and the Responses Thereto
RFP No. 7 requests the Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual for the Subject Vehicle from January 1, 2020 to the present.
Defendant responded to RFP No. 7 by stating that it would comply “in full with this request and produce, subject to a protective order, all responsive documents within its possession, custody or control, namely, a copy of the Warranty Administration Manual, including prior versions to the extent they exist dating from 2020 to the present.” Defendant also objected on the grounds that the request was overly broad and compound.
RFP No.10 requests a copy of the Workshop Manual specifying diagnosis and repair procedures for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle provided to Defendant’s authorized repair facility(s) within the state of California from January 1, 2020 to the present.
Defendant responded to RFP No. 10 by stating that it would comply “in full with this request and produce, subject to a protective order, all responsive documents within its possession, custody or control, namely, a copy of the Service Manual, for the Subject Vehicle.” Defendant also objected on the grounds that the request was overly broad and compound.
RFP No. 16 requests all documents, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any analysis or investigation by Defendant or on Defendant’s behalf regarding the electrical defect in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.
Defendant responded to RFP No. 16 by stating that it lacks the ability to comply with the demand as it is non-compliant with CCP § 2031.030(c)(1) and does not provide Defendant with sufficient information to identify the documents or category of documents being sought. Defendant also objected to such requests on the grounds, among others, that the request is vague, burdensome, and ambiguous.
RFP No. 19 requests all documents, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and recalls concerning the electrical defect in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.
Defendant responded to RFP No. 19 by stating that it lacks the ability to comply with the demand as it is non-compliant with CCP § 2031.030(c)(1) and does not provide Defendant with sufficient information to identify the documents or category of documents being sought. Defendant also objected to such requests on the grounds, among others, that the request is vague, burdensome, and ambiguous.
RFP Nos. 21-23 collectively request documents, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, warranty claims, failure rates, and any fixes for electrical defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.
Defendant responded to RFP Nos. 21-23 by stating that it lacks the ability to comply with the demand as it is non-compliant with CCP § 2031.030(c)(1) and does not provide Defendant with sufficient information to identify the documents or category of documents being sought. Defendant also objected to such requests on the grounds, among others, that the request is vague, burdensome, and ambiguous.
RFP No. 37 requests all documents used to evaluate consumers’ request for repurchases pursuant to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. RFP No. 39 requests all documents which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to procedures used by Defendant for the handling of complaints by consumers regarding vehicles Defendant manufactured or distributed.
In response to RFP Nos. 37 and 39, Defenant stated that it would comply in full with the requests by producing various documents subject to a protective order and otherwise objection on the grounds of the requests being overly broad and compound.
Appropriateness of Compelling Further Responses
Here, Plaintiff argues that the Subject Vehicle suffers from engine defects and electrical defects. (Olivia Decl., ¶¶ 3-8.) Plaintiff propounded her Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on Defendant and deemed Defendant’s responses thereto as insufficient. (Olivia Decl., ¶¶ 14-16; Exhs. 4-6.) Thus, the Court finds that the information sought pursuant to the requests for production at issue is relevant to Plaintiff proving her claims in this action.
The Court notes that the objecting party has the burden of justifying any objections to discovery. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) In law and motion practice, factual evidence is presented to the court by way of declarations. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.) Given that the instant motion is unopposed, Defendant has failed to offer any justification for its objections to the discovery at issue. Moreover, the Court has reviewed Defendant’s responses and none of the responses at issue “[i]dentify with particularity any document . . . or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)(1).)
Critically, because Defendant has failed to oppose the instant motion, Defendant has conceded to all the arguments raised in the motion as “[c]ontentions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority.” (Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215.)
Plaintiff has shown that the information sought by Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 7, 10, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 37, and 39 is relevant. Defendant has not justified any of its objections as it has failed to oppose the motion.
The motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide further complete, verified, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 7, 10, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 37, and 39 with 30 days of the date of notice of this order.