Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV39137, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39137    Hearing Date: December 5, 2023    Dept: 74

Gabriel Barahona, et al. v. Kia America, Inc.      

Motion for Sanctions

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a defective 2020 Kia Optima.

            On October 22, 2021, Plaintiffs Gabriel and Bertha Barahona (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Defendant Kia America, Inc. (Defendant).

            On October 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this motion for sanctions for failure to comply with the court’s discovery order on September 16, 2022.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs seek sanctions because Defendant failed to comply with the court’s September 16, 2022 order to provide further, verified, code compliant responses without objection to Plaintiffs’ request for production of documents (set one). As a preliminary matter, the court notes that despite the September 16 order, Defendant’s supplemental responses contain objections. (Crandall Decl., ¶ 20; Ex. 7.) Plaintiffs further contend that Defendants have not produced technical service bulletins TRA085, TRA083, and TRA098, all of which apply to the transmission defect at issue in the subject vehicle. Plaintiffs claim these documents would have been responsive to multiple RFPs. For example, RFP No. 16 seeks documents concerning Defendant’s investigation of the transmission defect in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Although Defendant agreed to produce all documents in its possession, custody, and control, it never produced the technical service bulletins at issue. In its opposition, Defendant contends those technical service bulletins were never applied to the subject vehicle, which means they were not subject to the court’s September 16 order compelling further responses. However, RFP No. 16 does not merely request documents regarding the transmission defect in the subject vehicle. Rather, the request covers vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle as well. The court’s September 16 order did not limit the request. Thus, Defendant failed to comply with the court’s September 16 order.

            The court finds that the circumstances do not warrant terminating sanctions. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. Of New York, Inc. (2016) Cal.App.4th 566, 604 [discovery statutes evince an incremental approach, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with ultimate terminating sanction].) However, the court orders the parties to be prepared to discuss during the hearing the appropriateness of the proposed issue and evidentiary sanctions that Plaintiff requests in Plaintiff’s proposed order filed on October 17, 2023.