Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV21760, Date: 2024-08-27 Tentative Ruling

All parties
are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling
to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their
matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify
the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the
tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by
e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org.
Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into
your email. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case
Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the
date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party
you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant,
cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear
at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue
the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties
in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to
argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words
"SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

If
you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via
Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the
Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

            Note that
once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not
to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the
order of the court.

If you submitted a
courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive),
unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will
destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories `is denied as moot.

Plaintiff Juan Perez Alvarez (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One). (Notice of Motion pg. 1.) In addition, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.

On September 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for Violation of Song-Beverly Act-Breach of Express Warranty and Negligent Repair. Plaintiff alleges that on May 29, 2019, Plaintiff purchased a 2019 Dodge Charger (“subject vehicle”). Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle developed defects and nonconformities to the warranty manifested themselves.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on May 31, 2024. Defendant filed its opposition on August 14, 2024. Plaintiff filed a reply on August 20, 2024.

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: ¶ (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. ¶ (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. ¶ (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

The propounding party must submit a declaration under Code of Civ. Proc. §2016.040 stating facts demonstrating a good faith and reasonable effort to informally resolve each issue raised by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §2030.300, subd. (b).)

“For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation]¿Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation]¿These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

Discovery is construed broadly so as to uphold the right to discovery wherever possible. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 377-378.) Any doubt is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery, particularly where the precise issues in the case are not yet clearly established. (Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.)

Here, the Court finds that the motion is moot. On August 12, 2024, Defendant provided further responses to all of Plaintiff’s requests at issue in this motion. In reply, Plaintiff does not dispute that the motion is moot, but argues the request for sanctions should be granted. (Reply, pg. 1.)

Thus, the only issue left to address is sanctions. The Court has authority to rule on sanctions when responses are served after the motion is filed. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 409.)

A court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand or interrogatories, 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Because the motion is denied (as moot), and because Defendant provided further responses, the court declines to award monetary sanctions.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is denied as moot. The request for sanctions is denied.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court