Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case Number: 24NNCV03161, Date: 2025-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 24NNCV03161, Date: 2025-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV03161 Hearing Date: March 7, 2025 Dept: E

24NNCV03161

Hearing Date: 03/07/2025 – 8:30am
Case No. 24NNCV03161
Trial Date: UNSET
Case Name: MARIE CUPO v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

BACKGROUND
On 7/29/2024, Plaintiff, Marie Cupo, filed the instant action against Defendant, Mazda Motor of America, Inc., a California Corporation, for violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty.

Plaintiff, Marie Cupo, has four motions on calendar for 03/07/2025.

For Motion 1 (Res ID 3284), Plaintiff seeks an order compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Special Interrogatories, Nos. 1-17, 18-27, 29-31, 40-41, 42, 43- 44 and monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,365.00 against Defendant MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., and its attorneys of record, BEATTY & MYERS, LLP.

For Motion 2 (Res ID 2253), Plaintiff seeks an order compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 1-2, 3, 4-15, 16, 17, 18, 19-32, 33-36, 37-41, 44, and 45-46 and monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,382.50 against Defendant MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. and its attorneys of record BEATTY & MYERS, LLP.

For Motion 3 (Res ID 8749), Plaintiff seeks an order compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions Nos. 1-35 and monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,035.00 against Defendant MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., and its attorneys of record, BEATTY & MYERS, LLP.

For Motion 4 (Res ID 0498), Plaintiff seeks an order compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 3.1-3.7, 12.1-12.7, 13.1-13.2, 14.1-14.2, 15.1, 17.1, and 50.1-50.6 and monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,105.00 against Defendant MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., and its attorneys of record, BEATTY & MYERS, LLP.

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).)

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

“A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP § 2033.290(b)(1).)

Defendant’s Oppositions argue that Plaintiff did not sufficiently meet and confer. The Court does not find Defendant’s argument availing. Plaintiff sufficiently met and conferred.

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).)

“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).)

“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.” (CCP § 2033.290(c).)

On October 16, 2024, Plaintiff propounded the discovery at issue for these hearings. On November 19, 2024, Defendant provided objection-only responses. Plaintiff filed the instant moving papers, and also served them via email, on January 3, 2025.

In opposition, Defendant argues that the four motions are untimely because they are not “ripe,” and Plaintiff’s deadline for these motions has not yet started.

Defendant argues that these motions are not “ripe” because on November 19, 2024, no verifications were provided with the responses. Defendant argues that under Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court, the 45-day timeline did not begin.

The Court does not find Defendant’s argument – that these motions are not yet ripe – to be availing.

Defendant cites Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court out of context. Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court stated, “[I]f the response is served before verification, the 45-day period would not yet begin – it would begin upon service of the verification of the previously supplied response.” (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 135.)

However, Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court was examined in a completely different context than the instant scenario because that case pertained to whether or not the motions were filed too late. Or to phrase it differently, if the motions were filed past the 45-day deadline.

Here, Defendant is attempting to argue that the 45-day time period did not even begin.

Defendant’s argument is nonsensical.

Further, Defendant ignores the fact that it admitted that the initial responses to all four of these motions contained objection-only responses.

“Pursuant to section 2030.250, subdivision (a), “[t]he party to whom … interrogatories are directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections.” (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 135.)

As the Reply accurately pointed out, Defendant’s contention is ludicrous. Under Defendant’s contention, no propounding party would ever be able to file a motion to compel further responses when a responding party serves only objections.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions are timely.

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).)

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.”

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.)

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – RFAs
Under CCP § 2033.290(a):

On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:

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

(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.

(CCP § 2033.290(a).)

ANALYSIS
In Reply, Plaintiff argues that the issue of compelling further responses for all four of these motions is moot because on February 19, 2025, after the filing of Plaintiff’s motions, Defendant served verified, supplemental responses to all of Plaintiff’s discovery requests.

Therefore, overall, the Court is inclined to deny these motions as moot as to compelling further responses, but not deny the motions as moot as to sanctions.

However, the Court notes that it will hear argument on the issue of the SROGs exceeding 35.

In opposition to the SROG motion, Defendant argued that the SROGs exceed the number allowed by the code, and if Defendant is required to further respond, a protective order should be issued.

Defendant’s Opposition points the Court to CCP § 2030.030(a)(1), “A party may propound to another party either or both of the following: (1) Thirty-five specially prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action.” (CCP § 2030.030(a)(1).)

Defendant also points to CCP § 2030.030(c), “ Unless a declaration as described in Section 2030.050 has been made, a party need only respond to the first 35 specially prepared interrogatories served, if that party states an objection to the balance, under Section 2030.240, on the ground that the limit has been exceeded.” (CCP § 2030.030(c).)

Defendant then points the Court to CCP § 2030.050:

Any party who is propounding or has propounded more than 35 specially prepared interrogatories to any other party shall attach to each set of those interrogatories a declaration containing substantially the following:

DECLARATION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY

I, __________, declare:

1. I am (a party to this action or proceeding appearing in propria persona) (presently the attorney for __________, a party to this action or proceeding).

2. I am propounding to __________ the attached set of interrogatories.

3. This set of interrogatories will cause the total number of specially prepared interrogatories propounded to the party to whom they are directed to exceed the number of specially prepared interrogatories permitted by Section 2030.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. I have previously propounded a total of __________ interrogatories to this party, of which __________ interrogatories were not official form interrogatories.

5. This set of interrogatories contains a total of __________ specially prepared interrogatories.

6. I am familiar with the issues and the previous discovery conducted by all of the parties in the case.

7. I have personally examined each of the questions in this set of interrogatories.

8. This number of questions is warranted under Section 2030.040 of the Code of Civil Procedure because __________. (Here state each factor described in Section 2030.040 that is relied on, as well as the reasons why any factor relied on is applicable to the instant lawsuit.)

9. None of the questions in this set of interrogatories is being propounded for any improper purpose, such as to harass the party, or the attorney for the party, to whom it is directed, or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on __________.

_____ (Signature) _____

Attorney for

(CCP § 2030.050.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s declaration was not proper because it was boilerplate and did not comply with the code.

Tentatively, the Court is inclined to find Defendant’s argument on the SROGs unavailing for the reasons stated below.

First, as the Reply pointed out, Defendant attacks Plaintiff’s declaration, yet Defendant did not attach the declaration in its Opposition so that the Court could evaluate Defendant’s argument. Likewise, the Court notes that the Reply also didn’t attach the declaration. Therefore, the parties should plan to bring this declaration to the hearing on 3/7/2025.

Setting aside the sufficiency of the declaration, the Court is still inclined to find Defendant’s argument unavailing.

As the Reply noted, on February 19, 2025, after the filing of Plaintiff’s motions, Defendant served supplemental responses to all 49 of Plaintiff’s SROGs. Therefore, the Court does not understand how this is still an issue if Defendant provided supplemental responses to all 49 of the SROGs.

Additionally, although Defendant’s Opposition argues that a protective order should be issued, the Reply points out how such a request should have been made in a separately noticed motion.

Under CCP § 2030.090(a)-(b)(2)

(a) When interrogatories have been propounded, the responding party, and any other party or affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions:

(2) That, contrary to the representations made in a declaration submitted under Section 2030.050, the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted.

(CCP § 2030.090(a)-(b)(2).)

Here, Defendant did not file a motion for a protective order.

Therefore, overall, based on Defendant providing supplemental, verified responses after the filing of Plaintiff’s motions, the Court is inclined to deny all four motions as moot as to responses, but not deny the motions as moot as to sanctions. The Court to hear argument.

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).)

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).)

“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, 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 § 2033.290(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).)

For Motion 1, Plaintiff requests sanctions as follows:

12. The total legal fees incurred of preparing the motion and supportive papers will be as follows:

a. A law clerk working under attorney supervision spent a total of 3.4 hours drafting the instant motion (including notice of motion, memorandum of points and authorities, separate statement, this declaration, and proposed order) at her normal billing rate of $175.00 per hour, for a total of $595.00.

b. I spent 0.3 hours reviewing the instant motion (including notice of motion, memorandum of points and authorities, separate statement, this declaration, and proposed order), at my normal billing rate of $450.00 per hour, for a total of $135.00.

c. And, it is reasonably anticipated that I will spend an additional two and a half (2.5) hours reviewing Defendant’s Opposition and drafting a reply to Defendant’s Opposition at my normal billing rate of $450.00 per hour, for a total of $1,125.00.

d. Finally, it is reasonably anticipated that I will spend an additional one (1) hour preparing for and attending the scheduled hearing on this matter at my normal billing rate of $450.00, for a total of $450.00.

e. In all, legal fees will total $2,305.00.

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

14. Adding up the figures above equals a total of $2,365.00. These sanctions are sought against Defendant MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. and its counsel of record, BEATTY & MYERS, LLP

(Thomas Decl. ¶¶ 12-14.)

In Opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s sanctions request should be denied because Plaintiff never made a good faith effort to meet and confer and brought this motion without substantial justification. Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff, and her counsel of record, in the amount of $2,863.50.

Here, the Court will hear argument. The Court is inclined to award at least some sanctions in favor of Plaintiff. The Court is inclined to deny Defendant’s sanctions request. Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff did not meet and confer in good faith is unavailing. Further, although Defendant argues that Plaintiff brought this motion without substantial justification, the Court fails to see how that is the relevant legal standard. Presumably, Defendant is using the language of “substantial justification” from the language in CCP § 2030.300(d). However, that language deals with the scenario wherein the court shall impose sanctions unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification. Here, Defendant has not shown it acted with substantial justification.

For Motion 2, Plaintiff requests sanctions as follows:

13. The total legal fees incurred of preparing the motion and supportive papers will be as follows:

a. A law clerk working under attorney supervision spent a total of 3.5 hours drafting the instant motion (including notice of motion, memorandum of points and authorities, separate statement, this declaration, and proposed order) at her normal billing rate of $175.00 per hour, for a total of $612.50.

e. In all, legal fees will total $2,322.50.

14. Our office was forced to spend $60.00 in filing the instant motion.

15. Adding up the figures above equals a total of $2,382.50. These sanctions are sought against Defendant MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. and its counsel of record, BEATTY & MYERS, LLP

(Thomas Decl. ¶¶ 13-15.)

In Opposition, Defendant argues that sanctions should be awarded against Plaintiff, and her counsel of record, in the amount of $3,748.50.

The Court to hear argument. As explained with respect to the sanctions request in Motion 1, the Court is inclined to award sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and deny Defendant’s sanctions request.

For Motion 3, Plaintiff requests sanctions as follows:

12. The total legal fees incurred of preparing the motion and supportive papers will be as follows:

a. A law clerk working under attorney supervision spent a total of 2.8 hours drafting the instant motion (including notice of motion, memorandum of points and authorities, separate statement, this declaration, and proposed order) at her normal billing rate of $175.00 per hour, for a total of $490.00.

c. And, it is reasonably anticipated that I will spend an additional two (2) hours reviewing Defendant’s Opposition and drafting a reply to Defendant’s Opposition at my normal billing rate of $450.00 per hour, for a total of $900.00.

e. In all, legal fees will total $1,975.00.

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

14. Adding up the figures above equals a total of $2,035.00. These sanctions are sought against Defendant MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. and its counsel of record, BEATTY & MYERS, LLP.

(Thomas Decl. ¶¶ 12-14.)

In Opposition, Defendant argues that sanctions should be imposed against Plaintiff, and her counsel of record, in the amount of $2,539.00.

The Court to hear argument. As explained with respect to the sanctions request in Motion 1, the Court is inclined to award sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and deny Defendant’s sanctions request.

For Motion 4, Plaintiff requests sanctions as follows:

12. The total legal fees incurred of preparing the motion and supportive papers will be as follows:

a. A law clerk working under attorney supervision spent a total of 3.2 hours drafting the instant motion (including notice of motion, memorandum of points and authorities, separate statement, this declaration, and proposed order) at her normal billing rate of $175.00 per hour, for a total of $560.00.

e. In all, legal fees will total $2,045.00.

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

14. Adding up the figures above equals a total of $2,105.00. These sanctions are sought against Defendant MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. and its counsel of record, BEATTY & MYERS, LLP.

(Thomas Decl. ¶¶ 12-14.)

In Opposition, Defendant requests sanctions be imposed against Plaintiff, and her counsel of record, in the amount of $2,509.50.