Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2022-01248729, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Arturo Plasencia’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Defendant FCA US LLC’s (“FCA”) Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (“SI”), Nos. 5-6, 8, 11-12, 14, 17-18, & 20, is GRANTED.

FCA is ordered to provide further responses in accordance with this ruling and with the Court’s 10/24/22 ruling (see ROA 68), within 30 days.

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the responding party has the burden to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the discovery requests.  (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Plaintiff is correct that FCA’s responses to these interrogatories are not code compliant.  The responses are incomplete and evasive as they unilaterally narrowed the scope of the defect definitions and failed to provide any responsive information.  Instead of providing responsive information, FCA simply replied that it would conduct a search for any responsive documents, individuals or investigations.  However, no further information has been provided.  This is clearly inadequate.  Moreover, while a party is permitted to produce writings in lieu of a response to an interrogatory, according to Plaintiff, FCA failed to produce any such responsive documents.  (C.C.P. § 2030.210(a)(2); 2030.230.)

In its opposition, FCA provides no justification for its unilateral narrowing of the defect definition and does not dispute Plaintiff’s contention that no responsive documents were provided.

As FCA failed to justify its failure to fully answer the discovery requests and as no responsive information was provided, the motion is GRANTED.

The Court finds sanctions are warranted here given FCA’s failure to comply with the Court’s prior order compelling further responses and FCA’s failure to provide code compliant supplemental responses for over five months.  While plaintiff requests that the court impose a $100 per interrogatory monetary sanction against FCA for every day after 30 days that FCA fails to provide a code compliant response to a given interrogatory (See Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 605; Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(e)), the court finds this sanction too difficult to enforce (and too likely to produce further discovery litigation) as the complexity of the interrogatories will almost certainly produce differences of opinion regarding the sufficiency of substantive responses.  Since the additional responses were already ordered and not provided, the court, instead, orders a one-time $200 charge per interrogatory for a total sanction of $1,800 payable to plaintiff, through plaintiff’s counsel, within 60-days.

The moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.