Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV05759, Date: 2024-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Zaw Tun’s motion to compel Defendant FCA US LLC’s compliance with this Court’s January 3, 2024, Ruling is denied as moot.

Plaintiff Zaw Tun (“Zaw Tun”) (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA”) (“Defendant”) to comply with this Court’s January 3, 2024, Discovery Order (“1/3/24 Ruling”). (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2031.310, 2031.320.)

On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed their operative complaint against Defendant alleging five causes of action: (1) violation of Civil Code §1793.2(d); (2) violation of Civil Code §1793.2(b); (3) violation of Civil Code §1793.2(a)(3); (4) breach of express written warranty (Civ. Code §§1791.2(a), 1794); and (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Civ. Code §§1791.1, 1794). (See Complaint.)

On August 21, 2023, Plaintiff propounded written discovery on Defendant and initially expected discovery responses by September 22, 2023. (Decl. of Bedwan ¶8.) On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff granted Defendant an extension to serve its discovery responses by October 18, 2023. (Decl. of Bedwan ¶9, Exh. 1.) On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff emailed Defendant asking when they could expect to receive the discovery responses, and Defendant did not respond to this email. (Decl. of Bedwan ¶10, Exh. 2.) On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff emailed Defendant once more, following up on the responses. (Decl. of Bedwan ¶11, Exh. 3.) Defendant’s Counsel responded on October 31, 2023, stating that she would look into the responses and serve them soon. (Decl. of Bedwan ¶12, Exh. 4.)

On November 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. (Decl. of Bedwan ¶13.) On December 19, 2023, Defendant served non-code-compliant and deficient responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production and did not include document production. (Decl. of Bedwan ¶14.) On January 3, 2024, the Court heard Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses and granted the motion and ordered Defendant to produce code-compliant responses without objections within 20 days. (1/3/24 Minute Order.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on February 2, 2024. On February 28, 2024, Defendant filed its opposition. As of the date of this hearing no reply has been filed.

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (C.C.P. §2031.320(a).)

Defendant served on Plaintiff verified responses to written discovery on February 21, 2024. (Decl. of Dao ¶4, Exh. A.) Accordingly, the instant motion is denied as moot.

In light of the Court’s ruling on the motion, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. Further, Plaintiff failed to properly notice its request for sanctions in their notice of motion.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to comply with this Court’s January 3, 2024, Ruling is denied as moot.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court