Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2022-1248729, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Arturo Plasencia’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Defendant FCA US LLC’s (“FCA”) Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (“SI”), Nos. 4-21 & 24 is GRANTED in part.

FCA is ordered to provide further responses 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.)

Interrogatory responses “shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) “If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Id., subd. (b).) “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Id., subd. (c).)

“A party may not deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive answer. (Citation.) Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.”  (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)

FCA’s objection that SI Nos. 4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18-20 are overbroad is well-taken. The Court deems it appropriate to limit the scope of said interrogatories to vehicles purchased or leased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle and equipped with the 6.7L Cummins Turbo Diesel engine. FCA has not shown that any further limitations on the discovery is warranted.

As to SI Nos. 5, 11 and 17, given the evidence submitted that suggests that FCA has been investigating the defects (see Exs. 3-8 to Chae Decl.), FCA’s response of “not applicable” is inadequate and a further response must be provided. A party cannot state, “not applicable” where the interrogatory is clearly applicable to him. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)

FCA’s responses to SI Nos. 9, 15 and 21 are also inadequate. FCA responded that it was not aware of any facts supporting any nonconformity or impairment in Plaintiff’s vehicle. This response is evasive and incomplete. Information regarding the alleged defects in Plaintiff’s vehicle are presumably available to FCA through its dealer records. A further response is warranted. (See Krotin v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4^th 294, 303 [“An automobile manufacturer need not read minds to determine which vehicles are defective; it need only read its dealers' service records.”]; see also, Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782 [a party “cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.”].)

Regarding SI No. 24, Plaintiff contends that FCA’s response is inadequate because the document referred to in the response does not identify all individuals referenced in that document. (See Separate Statement at 50:11-26.) Given the lack of full identification and FCA’s failure to justify its incomplete response, a further response that gives the requested identifying information for all pertinent individuals referenced in the document must be provided.

Accordingly, the motion is granted with the limitation noted above.

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