Titlehere

Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "Aboabdo v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC", Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Before the Court is Plaintiff Amal Aboabdo’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC’s (“Defendant”) further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP”), Set One.

For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 12, 13, 21, 22, 33, and 39; DENIED as to RFP Nos. 9 and 34; and MOOT as to the remaining RFP.

Further responses in accordance with this ruling are to be served within 20 days.

The opposition reflects that Defendant served second supplemental responses to the at issue discovery on May 2, 2023. (Ex. H to Opp.)

Plaintiff is correct that Defendant’s supplemental responses to RFP Nos. 12 and 13 are inadequate. Defendant’s responses to these RFP are evasive as responsive documents are presumably available to Defendant from Jaguar Land Rover UK. The companies are clearly affiliated; thus, it seems Defendant should be able to obtain these documents from said entity. (See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782 [a party “cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.”].) The motion is thus GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 12 and 13.

Defendant’s response to RFP No. 33 is likewise insufficient. Dealership records regarding similar customer complaints are presumably available to Defendant through its dealer records. A further response should thus be provided. (See Krotin v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4^th 294, 303; see also, Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782.) The motion is thus GRANTED as to RFP No. 33.

Plaintiff failed to show good cause justifying the discovery sought by RFP Nos. 9 and 34. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) The motion is thus DENIED as to said RFPs.

The motion is GRANTED as to RFP No. 39. This demand seeks documents that are relevant to Defendant’s 4^th affirmative defense stated in its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint that it has a “qualified third-party dispute resolution process…”

Plaintiff also contends in its motion and reply that documents related to Defendant’s alleged sub rosa investigation should be produced for potentially all requests. However, it does not appear Plaintiff has specifically propounded a demand for such documents. Moreover, Defendant asserts in the opposition that it has not conducted any such investigation. Thus, the motion is DENIED without prejudice to the extent it seeks documents pertaining to Defendant’s alleged sub rosa investigation.

Plaintiff also contends in the Reply that documents related to Plaintiff's service requests, including calls made to Defendant requesting roadside assistance, are incomplete. Although not specified, this would appear to relate to RFP Nos. 21 and 22. Defendant is ordered to produce the full communication history regarding Plaintiff’s calls made to Defendant requesting roadside assistance as such documents are relevant to the claims and defenses in this litigation.

In the Reply, Plaintiff does not dispute Defendant’s contention that it provided responsive documents with respect to any of the remaining RFP at issue. It thus appears that the motion as to the remaining RFPs is MOOT.

The Court finds the verifications to be sufficient.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in part. (Code Civ. Proc, § 2031.310(h).) Defendant failed to offer any substantial justification for its nearly six month delay in providing the second supplemental responses. In addition, several of the responses remain inadequate as discussed above. Pursuant to the Court’s October 10, 2022 Order, the Court considers amounts expended in connection with the prior motion to compel and the current motion in issuing sanctions. (ROA 151.)

The Court finds a reduced monetary sanction of $1,500 for the prior motion and $1,500 for the current motion is appropriate. Thus, the Court imposes a total monetary sanction of $3,000 against Defendant and its counsel of record, Bowman and Brooke LLP, payable to Plaintiff, through its counsel of record, within 30 days of the date of this order.

Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.