Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV30094, Date: 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30094    Hearing Date: December 20, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

  

Date:               12/20/22 (8:30 AM)

Case:               Victoria Kirksey Tarver v. Nissan North America, Inc. (21STCV30094)

 

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff Victoria Kirksey Tarver moves to compel further responses from defendant Nissan North America, Inc. to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1, 8, 16, 20, 21, 23-26, 29, 30, 32-35, 44, 67-75, 86, and 90.

 

Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. served and filed its opposition on December 14, 2022. The deadline to serve and file the opposition was December 7, 2022, nine court days before the hearing. (CCP § 1005(b) [opposition due nine court days before hearing].) The opposition was served and filed only five court days before the hearing. Plaintiff has not filed a reply. Under these circumstances, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to consider the opposition. (Rule of Court 3.1300(d) [“No paper may be rejected for filing on the ground that it was untimely submitted for filing. If the court, in its discretion, refuses to consider a late filed paper, the minutes or order must so indicate”].)   

 

The Court finds that plaintiff demonstrates good cause for the discovery sought. Based on plaintiff’s allegations regarding transmission and electrical defects in the subject vehicle (Compl. ¶ 9), plaintiff is entitled to discovery which is probative of defendant’s knowledge of these defects in 2019 Nissan Sentra vehicles, including in vehicles other than the subject vehicle, and defendant’s handling of complaints. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143-44; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 973-74, 994.)

 

Any willfulness in violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act would entitle plaintiff to a civil penalty not exceeding two times the amount of actual damages. (Compl. ¶ 13, 20, 23, 27 [allegation that defendant’s failure to comply with Song-Beverly was willful]; Civ. Code § 1794(c); CACI 3244.) A defendant is willful under Civil Code § 1794(c) when the defendant “knew of its legal obligations and intentionally declined to follow them.” (CACI 3244.) Defendant’s knowledge gained from other instances of the defects about which plaintiffs complain may evidence defendant’s knowledge that the powertrain control module and transmission were not repairable and therefore defendant had an obligation to replace or repurchase the vehicle under Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2).

“[I]f a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on responding party to justify any objection.” (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255, citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.) Having failed to file a timely opposition, defendant fails to meet its burden to justify its objections. Accordingly, defendant’s objections to the discovery at issue in this motion are STRICKEN.

 

Because defendant fails to justify its objections, further responses to Request Nos. 16, 20, 21, 23-26, 29, 30, 32-35, 67-75, 86, and 90 are required. With respect to Request Nos. 86 and 90, defendant’s purported inability to comply based on lack of specificity as to the phrasing of the document requests constitutes objections that defendant fails to justify.

 

Defendant’s responses to Request Nos. 1 and 44 are not fully compliant with CCP § 2031.220. Although defendant states it will comply in whole, defendant does not state that it will produce all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control. Further responses to Request Nos. 1 and 44 are required.

 

Defendant’s response to Request Nos. 8 is fully compliant with CCP § 2031.220. Defendant states it will comply in whole and will produce all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control. No further response to Request No. 8 is required.

 

The motion is GRANTED IN PART. The motion is DENIED as to Request for Production, Set One, No. 8. With respect to Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 1, 16, 20, 21, 23-26, 29, 30, 32-35, 44, 67-75, 86, and 90, no later than fifteen (15) days hereof, defendant Nissan North America, Inc. is ordered to provide Code-compliant, verified further responses and produce responsive documents.