Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 24NNCV04034, Date: 2025-03-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24NNCV04034 Hearing Date: March 21, 2025 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 03/21/2025 – 8:30am
Case No. 24NNCV04034
Trial Date: 02/17/2026
Case Name: SASUN HOVHANNISYAN, an individual; v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,
INC., a New Jersey Corporation; NEW CENTURY AUTOS INC., a California
Corporation d/b/a NEW CENTURY VOLKSWAGEN; and DOES 1-10, inclusive
TENTATIVE
RULING – MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RELIEF
REQUESTED¿
Plaintiff,
Sasun Hovhannisyan, moves for an order to strike Defendant, Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.’s, objections and compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request
for Production of Documents, Set One, Request Nos. 1 – 31.
Plaintiff seeks an order striking Defendant’s
objections and compelling further responses and all responsive documents within
ten calendar days from entry of the Court’s order.
Preliminary Procedural
Moving
Party: Plaintiff, Sasun Hovhannisyan
Responding Party: Defendant, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
16/21 Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b)): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300(c)): Ok
Correct Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): Ok
Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proposed Order; Separate
Statement; Sogoyan Declaration;
Opposition Papers: Opposition; Isabel N. Garcia
Declaration; Separate Statement;
Reply Papers: Reply; Ellen Zakharian Declaration; Notice
of Errata; Ellen Zakharian Declaration for Notice of Errata
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff,
Sasun Hovhannisyan, filed the instant action on 9/5/2024.
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that on October 22,
2023, Plaintiff leased a 2023 Volkswagen ID.4. Plaintiff alleges that the
subject 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, electrical system
defects.
The first three causes of action in the Complaint –
(1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation
of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty, and (3) Violation of the
Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2 – are alleged against Defendant, Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc.
The fourth cause of action for negligent repair is
alleged against Defendant, New Century Volkswagen.
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).)
“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 timeliness of the
instant motion; however, it appears that the instant motion is timely.
Meet and Confer
“The
motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section
2016.040.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(2).)
Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not meet and
confer. The Court does not find Defendant’s argument availing.
TENTATIVE
RULING
Overall,
both parties’ papers are largely unhelpful to the Court. Both parties submit an
inordinate amount of paperwork before the Court. Despite the excessive amount
of paperwork, both parties argue in an unclear manner and fail to respond to
each other’s arguments.
Tentative
Ruling RFPs 1-11 & 13-29 & 31
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED with respect to RFPs
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 31. Defendant’s objections appear boilerplate. Further,
Defendant’s responses are evasive. Defendant objects on several grounds, but
also simultaneously states it will produce all responsive documents, excluding privileged
communications. It is unclear if Defendant is withholding documents based on Defendant’s
objections. Further, to the extent that Defendant’s responses are asserting
objections, the responses are not compliant with CCP § 2031.240(b)-(c).
Defendant is
ordered to provide code-compliant, further responses without objection within
10 days of this Court’s order.
RFP
12
All photographs or videotapes of the
SUBJECT VEHICLE taken by YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility.
RESPONSE
TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
VWGoA
objects on grounds that the request seeks premature disclosure of expert
information contrary to CCP section 2034.210 et. seq.
SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
VWGoA
objects on grounds that the request seeks premature disclosure of expert
information contrary to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210 et. seq.
Subject to
and without waiving the foregoing objections, with the exception of its
production of any photographs or videotapes that may be included with any
dealer repair orders (Exhibit C) that will be produced herewith, VWGoA lacks
the ability to comply with the demand for inspection. A diligent search and
reasonable inquiry have been made in an effort to comply with the demand;
however, the particular item or category has never been in the possession,
custody, or control of VWGoA.
Tentative
Ruling RFP 12
The Court
will hear argument. The Court is not entirely clear what issue Plaintiff takes
with Defendant’s response.
Tentative
Ruling RFP 30
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further
responses is GRANTED with respect to RFP 30. Defendant’s objections are
overruled. Further, to the extent that Defendant asserted objections based on
attorney-client privilege, work-product, and trade secrets, Defendant’s
responses were not compliant with CCP § 2031.240(b)-(c).
Defendant is
ordered to provide code-compliant, further responses without objection within
10 days of this Court’s order. However, with respect to RFP 30, the Court limits
the request to other 2023 Volkswagen ID.4 vehicles in California.
Tentative
Ruling Note Overall
To the extent that Plaintiff’s
motion sought to compel responsive documents for RFPs 1-31, the Court will hear
argument. The Court is unclear as to how it can compel documents when Plaintiff
is currently seeking further responses. Or to phrase it differently, if Defendant
is being ordered to provide further responses, would it not be currently
unclear as to what documents that Defendant does or does not have since
Defendant has to first provide further responses?
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).)
“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 notes that neither party requested
sanctions.