Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case Number: 23GDCV02122, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV02122, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV02122 Hearing Date: April 26, 2024 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 04/25/2024 – 8:30am Case No. 23GDCV02122 Trial Date: UNSET Case Name: YVETTE MORADIANS, an individual; v. FCA US LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive

TENTATIVE RULING – COMPEL RESPONSES

BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Yvette Moradians, filed a Complaint on 10/06/2023 alleging five cause of action for: (1) Violation of Subdivision (d) of Civil Code §1793.2; (2) Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civil Code Section 1793.2; (3) Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2; (4) Breach of Express Written Warranty Civil Code Section 1791.2 subdivision (a), Section 1794; and (5) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability Civil Code Section 1791.1, Section 1794.

RELIEF REQUESTED¿ “Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant, FCA US LLC to respond to Plaintiff’s (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One; (3) Requests for Admissions, (4) Set One; and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.

This Motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, and 2033.280, on the grounds that Defendant refuses to timely respond to Plaintiff’s Discovery.

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to (1) respond to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections; (2) respond to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, without objections; (3) respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One, without objections; (4) respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, without objections; and (5) directing Defendant to comply within 10 calendar days.”

Procedural

Moving Party: Plaintiff, Yvette Moradians

Responding Party: No Opposition by Defendant

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Bedwan Declaration; Proposed Order

Opposition Papers: No Opposition

Reply: No Reply as of 4/19/2024; Reply would have been due 4/18/2024

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): Ok

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).)

LEGAL STANDARD –REQUEST TO DEEM ADMISSIONS ADMITTED “Within 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared, unless on motion of the requesting party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.” (CCP § 2033.250(a).)

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). (CCP § 2033.280(b).)

Further, “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). 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 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 2033.280(a).)

“The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL RESPONSES, INTERROGATORIES Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response. (CCP 2030.260(a).)

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290(b).)

“The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). 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 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 2030.290(a).)

TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff lumped what should have been four motions into one motion.

Plaintiff has filed one motion seeking to compel responses to special interrogatories, form interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission. This motion should have been four motions with four separate hearing reservations and four separate filing fees. Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect. “[P]ayment of filing fees is both mandatory and jurisdictional.” (Hu vs. Silgan Containers Corp. (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 1261, 1269.)

If Plaintiff wants these four motions to be heard, it can pay the additional three filing fees to the Court before the hearing and show proof of payment of the additional three filing fees before the hearing.

Alternatively, Plaintiff is welcome to request the Court to advance and continue the instant hearing to a date that the other three motions will be scheduled for; however, Plaintiff is warned that all motions must provide sufficient notice to Defendant. Further, the Plaintiff would need to clarify which discovery method the instant motion will pertain to on the future hearing date, i.e., will the instant motion pertain to special interrogatories, form interrogatories, requests for admission, or requests for productions. Presumably, the other three motions will clearly indicate what individual discovery method each individual motion will pertain to.

As to the merits of this motion, if Plaintiff comes forward with proof of the three additional filing fees before the hearing, Plaintiff alleges that the instant form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production were served on Defendant on November 9, 2023. Plaintiff alleges the discovery was due on December 12, 2023, but the deadline to respond was extended to December 27, 2023. Plaintiff states that on January 3, 2024 Defendant sent Plaintiff limited document production and a protective order, but Defendant did not serve responses to any of the items in this discovery set. Plaintiff alleges that a courtesy email was sent to Defendant on January 8, 2024 and January 30, 2024 regarding overdue responses, but Plaintiff received no response. Plaintiff’s counsel alleges that as of the date of filing this motion [March 27, 2024], Plaintiff has not received any responses.

Since over 30 days has passed since the discovery was initially propounded, and since the extended deadline has passed, Plaintiff appears to be entitled to responses.

If the filing fee issue is resolved before the hearing, Defendant is ordered to provide code compliant responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One within 10 days of this hearing. As to the Requests for Admission, the genuineness of the documents and the truth of the matters specified in the requests are deemed admitted.

If the filing fee issue is not resolved before the hearing, the Court will hear argument from the parties.

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).)

Sanctions – Requests for Admission

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

Sanctions – Interrogatories CCP § 2030.290 states in relevant part:

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 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 § 2030.290(c).)

Sanctions Ruling “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).)

The Court will hear from the parties.