Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case Number: 24NNCV01727, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 24NNCV01727, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV01727 Hearing Date: October 31, 2024 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 10/31/2024 – 8:30am
Case No: 24NNCV01727
Trial Date: UNSET
Case Name: ANTONIO DELGADO, an individual, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-20 Inclusive

3 MOTIONS-COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Antonio Delgado, filed the instant action on 5/21/2024 against Defendant, FCA US LLC, alleging two causes of action for: (1) Breach of Express Warranty Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and (2) Breach of Implied Warranty Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Plaintiff alleges that on May 10, 2020, he acquired a new 2020 Jeep Gladiator Overland. (Compl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he Vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to defects relating to the Body.” (Compl. ¶ 9.)

Further, “[t]he Body defects and nonconformities include, but are not limited to defects with the SUBJECT VEHICLE, and its component parts, which manifest the following symptoms: vehicle has a fluid leakage issue localized to the driver's side floorboard; requiring the replacement of the following parts: Header Seal and Door Seal; and/or any other similar concerns identified in the repair history for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” (Compl. ¶27.)

TENTATIVE RULING Motion 1 - Res ID 81667
Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, numbers 12.1, 15.1, and 17.1, against Defendant FCA US LLC.

On 10/23/2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal taking this motion off calendar.

Therefore, the Court finds this motion moot.

Motion 2 – Res ID 91667

RELIEF REQUESTED
“Plaintiff ANTONIO DELGADO (“Plaintiff”), will move for an order of the Court compelling Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”), to provide a verified further supplemental response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 2-36, 40-47, and 51- 83.

This Motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 and on the grounds that Defendant has, without substantial justification, failed to provide an appropriate response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 2-36, 40-47, and 51-83, as required under the Code of Civil Procedure.

This Motion is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the attached Declaration of Erik Whitman, and the exhibits attached thereto, the supporting Separate Statement under rule 3.1345 of the Rules of Court, the records on file with the Court and upon such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this Motion.”

(Pl. Notice. p. 1-2.)

Preliminary Procedural Analysis

Moving Party: Plaintiff, Antonio Delgado

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;

Opposition Papers: Memorandum; Separate Statement; Gregg Declaration;

Reply Papers: Reply; Evidentiary Objections

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’s counsel contends that this motion is timely. Defendant’s counsel does not argue that this 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).)

See tentative ruling.

Tentative Ruling (TR) Motion 2 – Res ID 91667

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to SROGs 2-36, 40-47, and 51- 83.

TR – SROGs – 24, 42, 44
As to SROGs 24, 42, and 44, Defendant states in its Opposition that it agreed to supplement its responses to SROGs 24, 42, and 44.

In Reply, Plaintiff agrees to withdraw his motion as to SROGs 42 and 44.

Therefore, as to SROGs 42 and 44, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as moot.

The Court will hear argument as to SROG 24. Defendant stated it would supplement its response to SROG 24, but it is unclear why Plaintiff does not state in his Reply why he didn’t withdraw the motion as to SROG 24 like he did with respect to 42 and 44.

TR – SROGs – 14-18, 36, 60-61

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

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel, Whitman, generally alleged that a meet and confer occurred as to the issues raised in this motion. (See Whitman Decl. ¶¶ 9-13.) Whitman attached as Exhibit 5, proof of the meet and confer correspondence.

However, as accurately pointed out in Defendant’s Opposition, Whitman’s meet and confer letter did not address SROGs 14-18, 36, and 60-61.

“A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (CCP § 2016.040.)

Since Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer letter does not appear to address 14-18, 36, and 60-61, it does not appear that Plaintiff attempted an informal resolution as to each issue presented by this motion.

The Court tentatively plans to DENY Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SROGs 14-18, 36, and 60-61. The Court will hear argument.

Defendant’s Good Cause Argument
In Opposition, Defendant argues in part that Plaintiff’s motion provides virtually no substantive discussion demonstrating good cause for further responses as to the further discovery responses sought.

The Court notes that this argument is unavailing.

The burden is not on the movant to demonstrate 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).)

Therefore, Defendant’s argument is incorrect that Movant here has the burden to justify good cause. In fact, Defendant has the burden here to justify any objections or failures to respond.

TR 2-13, 19-23, 25-35, 40-41, 43, 45-47, 51-59, 62-83

As to SROGs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 78, 79, 80, 81, and 82, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses. Defendant’s objections are boilerplate, and Defendant fails to justify its objections. Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections.

As to SROGs 12, 13, 19, 20, 26, 28, 30, 31, and 33, the Court will hear argument. As to these SROGs, in relevant part, Defendant’s responses cite to CCP § 2030.230 and refers Plaintiff to things like the Customer Assistance Inquiry Records, warranty claim records for the subject vehicle, or a copy of the Repair Order Detailed Report for the subject vehicle.

CCP § 2030.230 states, “If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. The responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them.” (Ibid.)

Defendant stands behind its objections by stating it is answering according to code under 2030.230 by referring to specified writings from which the answer may be derived.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant directing Plaintiff to documents in lieu of an actual response is improper; however, the Court doesn’t fully understand Plaintiff’s argument. Under CCP § 2030.230, it appears as if Defendant can in fact refer to writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained.

Therefore, the Court will hear argument as to how 12, 13, 19, 20, 26, 28, 30, 31, and 33 are not code compliant with 2030.230.

As to SROGs 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, and 83, the Court will hear argument. As to these, in relevant part, Defendant objected on grounds of compound/conjunctive, or disjunctive under 2030.060(d) and (f).

“No specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question.” (CCP § 2030.060(f).)

To the Court it appears as if Plaintiff’s request are in fact compound; therefore, it appears as if Defendant justified its objection under 2030.060(f).

The Court will hear argument as to 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, and 83.

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).)

Here, neither party requested sanctions.

Motion 3 – Res ID 5297

RELIEF REQUESTED
“Plaintiff ANTONIO DELGADO (“Plaintiff”), will move for an order of the Court compelling Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”), to provide verified, further responses to Request for Production of Document Nos. 1-9, 13-21, 24, 25, 27, 33-38, 41-72, and 73-84.

This motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.010 and 2031.310 and on the grounds that Defendant has, without substantial justification, failed to provide full and complete responses to Request for Production of Document Nos. 1-9, 13-21, 24, 25, 27, 33-38, 41-72, and 73-84, or a complete production of documents responsive to these Requests.

This motion is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the attached Declaration of Erik Whitman, Esq. (“Whitman Decl.”), and the exhibits attached thereto, the supporting Separate Statement under Rule 3.1345 of the Rules of Court, the records on file with the Court and upon such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this motion.”

(Pl. Mot. p. 1-2.)

Preliminary Procedural Analysis

Moving Party: Plaintiff, Antonio Delgado

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;

Opposition Papers: Memorandum; Separate Statement; Gregg Declaration;

Reply Papers: Reply; Evidentiary Objections

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

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.”

(CCP § 2031.310(a).)

Under CCP § 2031.310(b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”

“In the more specific context of a demand for production of a tangible thing, the party who asks the trial court to compel production must show “good cause” for the request—but unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

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 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, neither party addresses the 45-day requirement. Thus, the Court finds this motion timely.

Meet and Confer
“The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(2).)

Plaintiff’s counsel, Whitman, alleges that a meet and confer occurred. (Whitman Decl. ¶¶ 8-14.)

Tentative Ruling (TR) Motion 3 – Res ID 5297
Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Request for Production of Document Nos. 1-9, 13-21, 24, 25, 27, 33-38, 41-72, and 73-84.

Tentative Ruling RFPs - 1-9, 13, 14, 15 18, 19, 20, 27, 38, 41, 42, 66, 67

The Court is unsure what Plaintiff wants compelled. While Plaintiff demonstrated good cause/relevance as to these requests, Defendant stated it was complying in full and lists which documents it is producing. Overall, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Plaintiff established good cause/relevance for the instant requests, but other than relevance, Plaintiff’s reasons to compel further responses seem nonresponsive to how Defendant actually responded.

Plaintiff argues the responses aren’t code compliant, but the Court fails to see how the responses did not comply with § 2031.220. Plaintiff is welcome to explain at the hearing how the responses are not code compliant under § 2031.220.

Further, in Plaintiff’s reason to compel further responses, Plaintiff enumerates specific categories of documents that are named differently than the document categories listed in the request and argues that Defendant did not include those in its production, but the Court is unclear as to what Plaintiff is arguing. Defendant stated it would comply in full, and listed the documents it would produce. If Plaintiff is trying to argue that Defendant should have produced different documents than the ones requested, should Plaintiff not have specifically requested those exact documents?

Plaintiff also stated that Defendant failed to produce any documents. The Court will hear argument as to if that is even before this Court, or if Plaintiff has to file a motion to compel compliance under 2031.320. The Court brings this up because if at the hearing Plaintiff convinces the Court that further responses need to be compelled, wouldn’t Defendant first need to respond for Plaintiff to know what needs to be produced based on the responses?

Further, on several occasions Plaintiff addresses objections in certain responses wherein the objection wasn’t even in that response.

Further, on some occasions, Plaintiff makes arguments to compel on grounds of Defendant stating it would partially comply when in fact Defendant stated it would comply in full. (See RFP 18.)

Further, on some occasions, like RFP 27, in Plaintiff’s reason to compel further, Plaintiff argues that Defendant responded only with objections, but in RFP 27, not a single objection was asserted. Or similarly in RFP 42, Plaintiff refers to Defendant’s objections, despite the fact that Defendant’s response did not contain an objection.

Overall, the Court isn’t certain if it even understands Plaintiff’s arguments because on many occasions Plaintiff’s reasons to compel further responses aren’t even responsive to the answer that Defendant responded with.

The Court will hear argument as to RFPs 1-9, 13, 14, 15 18, 19, 20, 27, 38, 41, 42, 66, and 67.

TR RFP 16

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further, code-compliant, verified responses without objection to RFP 16 is GRANTED. Plaintiff demonstrated good cause and Defendant’s response is not code compliant with 2031.230.

TR RFPs 17, 33, 34, 35, 36, 43, 53, 59, 63, and 64

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further, verified, code compliant responses to RFPs 17, 33, 34, 35, 36, 43, 53, 59, 63, and 64 is GRANTED. Defendant’s responses state it is complying in full, but Defendant then qualifies that it will produce in full subject to a protective order. This response is evasive and makes it unclear if Defendant is in fact complying in full.

TR RFP 21

The Court will hear argument; the Court is unclear how Defendant did not comply with § 2031.220. Defendant said it would comply in full. While the Court is open to striking the boilerplate objection in the response that was asserted after Defendant said it would comply in full, the rest of the response appears to be code compliant. CCP § 2031.220 does not state that Plaintiff has to articulate what exactly is being produced within the response, it just says it has to indicate if it is complying in full or in part. It’s possible that Plaintiff may more so have an issue with regard to 2031.280, but it is unclear what Plaintiff is arguing here.

TR RFP 24 & 25

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to RFPs 24 and 25 is tentatively DEINED, but the Court is open to hearing argument. Defendant’s objections as to vague, ambiguous, and undefined seem to be on point. “Certification” is not a defined term. The Court is unclear how Defendant is to respond when Plaintiff’s request isn’t clear or specific.

TR RFP 55
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 55 is DENIED.

Defendant’s objection as to overly broad appears to be on point. This request is not limited in time or scope, to the subject vehicle, nor to the defects at issue.

TR 37

The Court will hear argument. It appears as if Defendant’s response is code compliant with 2031.230. The Court fails to understand Plaintiff’s arguments.

TR 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51,52, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, and 84

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further, verified, code-compliant responses with respect to RFPs 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51,52, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, and 84. Plaintiff demonstrated good cause. In several of these responses, Defendant states it will comply in part; however, as to what Defendant is withholding, Defendant does not comply with 2031.240.

TR RFPs 54 and 81

As to RFPs 54 and 81, the Court will hear argument. Defendant argues that it provided a supplemental response. Plaintiff does not acknowledge this. These RFPs could be moot if a supplemental response was already provided.

TR RFPs 65 & 73-74

As to these RFPs, the Court will hear argument.

Sanctions

Except as provided in subdivision (j), 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 further response to a demand, 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 §2031.310(h).)

Here, neither party requested sanctions.