Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2022-01248729, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Arturo Plasencia’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Defendant FCA US LLC’s (“Defendant”) Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”), Set One, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Defendant is ordered to provide further documents in accordance with this ruling within 30 days of the hearing on this motion.

Per the Reply, Plaintiff has withdrawn the motion as to RFP Nos. 12, 14-24, 26, 28-37, & 39-48, as Defendant produced additional responsive documents.  Thus, the only RFP remaining at issue are RFP Nos. 13, 50 and 53-55.  (Reply at 1:3-8.)

As to RFP Nos. 13, 54 and 55, Plaintiff contends FCA has not produced any responsive documents despite agreeing to comply in whole with each of these requests.  The Court finds good cause is generally shown for the documents requested by these RFP.  However, consistent with this Court’s Case Management Order (“CMO”) entered in this matter on August 31, 2022, the Court limits RFP No. 54 to “Defendant's written statements of policy and/or procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase or replacement pursuant to "Lemon Law" claims, including ones brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date the subject vehicle was purchased or leased to the date the lawsuit was filed.” 

In the Opposition, FCA generally argues that it has produced additional documents, but it fails to specify which documents were produced in response to which Requests.  As such, and given Plaintiff’s representation that no responsive documents were produced for these RFP, the Court GRANTS the motion as to RFP Nos. 13 and 54, with the limitation noted above.

The motion is DENIED as to RFP No. 55 as this request seeks documents outside the scope of the CMO and the Court’s December 19, 2022 Order, and Plaintiff has failed to set forth good cause for further document production.

The motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 50 and 53.  The Court finds FCA’s supplemental response to be code compliant.  Further, FCA represents in its response that all responsive documents in its possession, custody and control have been produced.  If Plaintiff suspects that documents have been withheld, Plaintiff can seek clarification through other written discovery or deposition.

Given that the court denied a large portion of this motion, the court declines to award further sanctions.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.