Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case Number: 23GDCV00889, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV00889, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV00889 Hearing Date: March 15, 2024 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 03/15/2024 – 8:30am
Case No: 23GDCV00889
Trial Date: UNSET
Case Name: DANITZA MARAVILLA TORRES aka DANITZA MARAVILLA; and ANDRES MORALES RIOS v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; GLENDALE DODGE, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company dba GLENDALE DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP RAM; and DOES 1-10

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiffs, Danitza Maravilla Torres, aka Danitza Maravilla, and Andres Morales Rios, move the Court for an order compelling further responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,610.00 against Defendant FCA US LLC and its attorneys of record, Ongaro P.C.

“This motion is made on the grounds that Defendant FCA US LLC has not provided Code-compliant responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories numbers 45-48 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (e) and 2023.030, subdivision (g).

This motion is based upon the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, the Declaration of Zachary Powell, the Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute, the papers and records on file, and upon such oral and documentary evidence that may be presented at the hearing on this matter.”

BACKGROUND
On 05/02/2023, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants FCA US LLC and Glendale Dodge LLC dba Glendale Dodge Chrysler Jeep.

The first two causes of action – (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, and (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Section 1793.2 – are alleged against Defendant FCA US LLC

The third cause of action for negligent repair is alleged against Glendale Dodge LLC.

This action involves a 2017 Dodge Charger.

PROCEDURAL

Moving Party: Plaintiffs
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; Powell Declaration; Proposed Order

Opposition Papers: Opposition [filed on 3/4/2024 at 3:19pm]; Opposition [filed on 3/4/2024 at 9:22pm]; Separate Statement [filed on 3/4/2024 at 3:19pm]; Vawter Declaration; Separate Statement [filed on 3/4/2024 at 9:22pm]

[The Court notes that it is unclear as to why Defendant submitted 2 opposition memorandums and 2 opposition separate statements.]

Reply Papers: Reply

LEGAL STANDARD - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
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.”

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(CCP § 2030.300(a).

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the¿burden is on the responding party¿to justify any objection or failure fully to answer.¿(Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also¿Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

“While the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Furthermore, to the extent there is any doubt in whether these records should be discoverable, California’s liberal approach to discovery provides that doubt should be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.)

The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

(1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered.

(2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings.

(3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.

(CCP § 2030.210(a).)

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 propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (CCP §2030.300(c).)

Plaintiffs argue that this motion had to be filed on January 22, 2024 and that since it was filed by January 22, 2024, it is thus timely. Defendant does not argue that the instant motion is untimely. Therefore, the Court finds this motion timely.

Meet and Confer
“A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP § 2030.300(b)(1).)

Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel alleged he met and conferred. (Powell Decl. ¶5, Ex. C.) Opposition argues that Plaintiffs’ counsel prematurely abandoned the meet and confer process, but the Court does not find this argument availing.

TENTATIVE RULING
The instant motion was filed by Plaintiffs on 1/22/2024. Defendant provided supplemental responses to the instant SROGs, 45-48, on February 20, 2024, and verifications to its supplemental responses on February 23, 2024. Since Defendant provided supplemental responses to the instant requests, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Special Interrogatories, numbers 45-48, is DENIED as moot with respect to compelling further responses. However, this motion is not denied as moot as to the issue of sanctions since Defendant provided the supplemental responses after the filing of the instant motion.

Sanctions

Plaintiffs request an award of monetary sanctions against FCA and its counsel of record, Ongaro PC in the amount of $2,610.00.

Plaintiffs’ notice page cited to 2030.300(e) as a basis for sanctions; however, this is not the proper section to request sections as subsection (e) pertains to when a party fails to obey an order compelling further responses. Here, there has yet to be an order compelling further responses.

Plaintiffs’ memorandum requests sanctions under 2031.310(h); however, this is also not the correct section because it pertains to inspection demands and not interrogatories.

Plaintiffs’ notice page also cited to § 2023.030(g) as a basis for requesting sanctions; however, the Court does not see a subsection (g) in § 2023.030.

The code section that Plaintiffs should have requested sanctions under is § 2030.300(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 further response to interrogatories, 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 § 2030.300(d).)

“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 requests sanctions as follows:

9. As a result of Defendant’s failure to provide Code-compliant responses and the time and effort it took Plaintiffs to meet and confer, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court award monetary sanctions for the costs associated with Plaintiffs’ preparation of this motion. The total legal fees incurred of preparing the motion and supportive papers will be as follows:

a. I spent two (2.0) hours drafting the instant motion, separate statement, proposed order, notice of motion, and declaration, at my normal billing rate of $425.00 per hour, for a total of $850.00.

b. It is also reasonably anticipated that I will spend an additional two hours reviewing Defendant’s opposition and drafting a reply at my normal billing rate of $425.00 per hour, for a total of $850.00.

c. Finally, it is reasonably anticipated I will spend an additional two hours preparing for and attending the scheduled hearing on this matter at my normal billing rate of $425.00, for a total of $850.00

d. In all, legal fees will total $2,550.00.

10. Our office will be forced to spend $60.00 in filing the instant motion.

(Powell Decl. ¶¶9-10.)

In Opposition, Defendant argues against sanctions on the basis that the court has discretion to not impose sanctions. Defendant argues that sanctions are inappropriate because Defendant provided supplemental responses rendering this motion moot.

In Reply, Plaintiffs continue to cite to the incorrect code section of § 2031.310(h) as a basis for sanctions. Plaintiffs argue that sanctions are warranted because Defendant’s objections lacked merit.

The Court will hear argument as to sanctions. The Court is likely to grant sanctions based on Defendant sending supplemental responses after the filing of this motion.