Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case Number: 23GDCV00969, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV00969, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV00969 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 07/12/2024 – 8:30am
Case No: 23GDCV00969
Trial Date: UNSET
Case Name: RENE HERNANDEZ v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, BLUESKY DIVERSIFIED, INC. dba PUENTE HILLS FORD, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

BACKGROUND
On 05/10/2023, Plaintiff Rene Hernandez filed a Complaint. The first two causes of action – (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty and (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty – are alleged against Defendant Ford Motor Company.

The third cause of action for negligent repair is alleged against Bluesky Diversified, Inc., dba Puente Hills Ford.

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that on January 26, 2021, Plaintiff entered into a warranty contract with Ford Motor Company regarding a 2021 Ford Explorer.

RELIEF REQUESTED
“Plaintiff, will, and hereby does, move the Court for an order compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,695.00 against Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY and its attorneys of record, Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP.

This motion is made on the grounds that Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY has not provided Code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s 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.”

(Mot. p. 1.)

Procedural

Moving Party: Plaintiff, Rene Hernandez

Responding Party: Defendant, Ford Motor Company

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; Proposed Order; Powell Declaration

Opposition Papers: Opposition; Separate Statement; Biemann Declaration

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).)

Here, Plaintiff timely filed this motion in accordance with the parties agreement to extend the deadline to file this motion. (See Powell Decl. ¶11.)

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, this requirement was met. (See Powell Decl. ¶¶ 5-11.)

INTERROGATORIES AND RESPONSES AT ISSUE

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 45.

At the time of release for the 2021 Ford Explorer vehicles, state your anticipated range for repairs per thousand vehicles sold (R/1000).

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 45:

Ford objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is irrelevant because it is not limited to a relevant timeframe, any specific claim or repair, to Plaintiff, or the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, or to any specific or alleged malfunction, problem, or concern, or to the allegations in this case. Moreover, this Interrogatory contains no subject matter for any anticipated repairs per thousand vehicles sold and contains no specific identification of any of the multiple vehicle systems contained in the 2021 Ford Explorer, which are in turn comprised of hundreds, if not thousands, of individual components and parts. Further, this Interrogatory is not limited to any of the specific components or parts at issue in this case for which information regarding anticipated range of repair, or repair rate per thousand vehicles, is sought.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 46.

State the repairs per thousand vehicles sold (R/1000) for 2021 Ford Explorer vehicles.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 46:

Ford objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is irrelevant because it is not limited to a relevant timeframe, to any vehicle or customer, any specific claim, any alleged malfunction, problem or concern, to Plaintiff, or the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Moreover, this Interrogatory contains no subject matter for any anticipated repairs per thousand vehicles sold and contains no specific identification of any of the multiple vehicle systems contained in the 2021 Ford Explorer, which are in turn comprised of hundreds, if not thousands, of individual components and parts, much less to any of the specific components or parts at issue in this case for which information regarding repairs per thousand vehicles is sought. Further, a customer could require vehicle repair for various reasons, including those unrelated to Ford, or could be due to the improper use, maintenance or servicing of the vehicle. Therefore, the circumstances giving rise to repairs to other vehicles are wholly unrelated and are dissimilar to those in this litigation.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 47. Identify in order the five symptoms with the highest repairs per thousand (R/1000) for 2021 Ford Explorer vehicles, and the corresponding repairs per thousand.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 47:

Ford objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is irrelevant in that it is not limited to a relevant timeframe, to any vehicle or customer, any specific claim, any alleged malfunction, problem, or concern, or to Plaintiff or the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Moreover, this Interrogatory contains no subject matter for any anticipated symptoms of repairs per thousand vehicles sold and contains no specific identification of any of the multiple vehicle systems contained in the 2021 Ford Explorer, which are in turn comprised of hundreds, if not thousands, of individual components and parts. Further, this Interrogatory is not limited to any of the specific components or parts at issue in this case for which information regarding the highest repairs per thousand vehicles by symptom is sought. Ford also objects to this Interrogatory as vague because symptom is not defined or related to a specific allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Further, a customer could require vehicle repair for various reasons, including those unrelated to Ford, or could be due to the improper use, maintenance or servicing of the vehicle. Therefore, the circumstances giving rise to repairs to other vehicles are wholly unrelated and are dissimilar to those in this litigation.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 48.

Identify in order the five components with the highest repairs per thousand (R/1000) for 2021 Ford Explorer vehicles, and the corresponding repairs per thousand.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 48:

Ford objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is irrelevant in that it is not limited to a relevant timeframe, to any vehicle or customer, any specific claim, any alleged malfunction, problem or concern, or to Plaintiff or the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Moreover, this Interrogatory contains no subject matter for any anticipated repairs per thousand vehicles sold and contains no specific identification of any of the multiple vehicle systems contained in the 2021 Ford Explorer, which are in turn comprised of hundreds, if not thousands, of individual components and parts. Further, this Interrogatory is not limited to any of the specific components or parts at issue in this case for which information regarding the highest repairs per thousand vehicles is sought. Further, a customer could require vehicle repair for various reasons, including those unrelated to Ford, or could be due to the improper use, maintenance or servicing of the vehicle. Therefore, the circumstances giving rise to repairs to other vehicles are wholly unrelated and are dissimilar to those in this litigation.

SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS
Upon reading Plaintiff’s motion and separate statement, it is entirely unclear as to what information SROGs 45-48 are requesting. All of the SROGs at issue contains terms and phrases the meanings of which are unclear to this Court.

However, that being said, Plaintiff does not have the burden to first establish good cause.

While a motion to compel a further response to an inspection demand requires good cause, a motion to compel a further response to an interrogatory does not. (Compare CCP § 2031.310(b)(1) to CCP § 2030.300(b).)

In Opposition, in order to justify its objections, Defendant argues:

None of these Interrogatories are limited to Plaintiff, to his 2021 Ford Explorer, to any specific claim or repair, to any specific or alleged malfunction, problem or concern, or to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint. These Interrogatories contain no subject matter for any anticipated repairs or symptoms of repairs per thousand vehicles sold and contain no specific identification of any of the multiple vehicle systems contained in the 2021 Ford Explorer. Rather, they seek information about the entire Ford Explorer, which is comprised of hundreds of systems and sub-systems, and thousands of individual components and parts, much less any of the specific components or parts that were repaired on Plaintiff’s Explorer. Systems, components, and parts that were never repaired on Plaintiff’s vehicle, and which are not at issue in his Complaint, are plainly not relevant, as information about them is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.

(Oppo. p. 7.)

As a preliminary matter, because the requests in the SROGs are difficult to understand, the Opposition’s objections on irrelevancy and overbreadth seem persuasive: the Court can’t even understand the requests.

While moving Plaintiff did not have the initial burden to establish good cause, the Court points Plaintiff to CRC 3.1345(c):

A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference. The separate statement must include-for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested-the following:

…

(4) If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it;

(CRC, rule 3.1345(c)(4).)

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be accompanied by a separate statement. (See CRC, rule 3.1345(a)(2).)

Here, Plaintiff’s Separate Statement did not provide the information necessary for the Court to understand each request at issue.

Further, to the extent that this Court can decipher these requests, Defendant’s argument – that the requests are not limited to a specific claim or repair, to any specific or alleged malfunction, problem or concern, or to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint – seems to justify Defendant’s objections on irrelevancy and overly broad.

In Reply, Plaintiff argues:

Interrogatories 45-48 would be probative of whether Ford had reason to know that its 2021 Ford Explorer vehicles were experiencing an abnormally high number of warranty repairs regarding the same problems that Plaintiff experienced with their vehicle. Not only would this information be relevant to demonstrating that a defect likely exists in Plaintiff’s vehicle, but it would also show that Ford failed to provide remedy to Plaintiff even though it knew that these vehicles were suffering from widespread warranty problems. Because courts have recognized that a manufacturer’s decision refusing to provide remedy to a consumer that is “made without the use of reasonably available information germane to that decision is not a reasonable, good faith decision” and warrants a civil penalty, the information regarding Ford’s knowledge of similar widespread warranty issues is relevant to proving that a civil penalty is appropriate. (Lukather v. General Motors, LLC, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 1051, italics added; see also Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154 [holding that the use of “other vehicle” evidence at trial “certainly was probative and not prejudicial.”].)

(Reply p. 2.)

Again, the Court is not entirely clear as to what Plaintiff is trying to argue. Plaintiff mentions that the requests would be probative to whether Ford had reason to know that its 2021 Ford Explorer vehicles were experiencing the same problems that Plaintiff experienced, but the Court fails to understand Plaintiff’s argument because these requests don’t specifically seek information about the problems that Plaintiff’s car was experiencing; it appears as if these requests could easily encompass problems that are not the same as the problems at issue in this case.

TENTATIVE RULING
The Court’s tentative is to DENY Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to SROGs 45-48. Defendant appeared to justify its objections. However, the Court will hear argument from the parties since the requests were difficult to decipher.

Sanctions

“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).)

Movant request monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,695.00 against Defendant Ford Motor Company and its attorney of record, Mortenson Taggart Adamas LLP.

Plaintiff’s counsel, Powell, explains its sanctions request as follows:

a. I spent 2.2 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 $935.00.

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 $2,635.00.

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

(Powell Decl. ¶¶ 12a – 13.)

Opposition argues that sanctions against Ford are not warranted because the responses and objections were proper and appropriate, and thus it acted with substantial justification to render an imposition of a sanction unjust.

The Court will hear argument on sanctions.