Judge David A. Rosen, Case 20STCV18473 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 20STCV18473, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV18473 Hearing Date: March 24, 2023 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 03/24/2023 – 8:30am
Case No.¿20STCV18473
Trial Date: 04/03/2023
Case Name: JUSTINE HSU v. TESLA, INC. fka TESLA MOTORS, INC.

TENTATIVE RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

¿¿¿

Moving Party:¿ Plaintiff, Justine Hsu
Responding Party: Defendant, Tesla, Inc

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300(c)): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok
Proper Address: Ok

Oppo and Reply submitted.

Moving Papers: Plaintiff’s motion; Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice; Plaintiff’s Separate Statement; Anum Arshad Declaration

Opposition Papers: Opposition; Michael R. Carey Declaration; Objection to Separate Statement; Ryan A. McCarthy Declaration

Reply Papers: Reply; Arshad Declaration

RELIEF REQUESTED¿¿¿
Plaintiff, Justine Hsu, moves this Court for:

(1) For issue sanctions against Tesla, establishing that prior to the subject incident, July 6, 2019, Tesla was on notice of defects in its Autopilot and frontal airbag systems on the 2016 Model S Tesla;

(2) For issue sanctions against Tesla, establishing that prior to the subject incident, July 6, 2019, Tesla was on notice of the use and failures of Autopilot on city streets;

(3) For evidence sanctions against Tesla, barring Tesla from introducing any documents into evidence that would show that operating a vehicle on Autopilot is safer than operating without;

(4) For evidence sanctions against Tesla, barring Tesla from introducing any documents into evidence that would show that Tesla was not on notice regarding (1) failures within its Autopilot system, and (2) use of Autopilot in city streets;

(5) For monetary sanctions against Tesla in the amount of $114,310.00 for Tesla’s willful failure to obey the June 24, 2022 Court Order, due and payable to Justine within fourteen (14) days of the hearing on this Motion; and

(6) For any such other and further relief that the Court may deem necessary and appropriate.

This Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010, 2023.030, 2030.290(c), 2030.300(e), 2031.310(i), 2031.320(c), and 177.5 and is brought on the grounds that Tesla has willfully failed to obey this Court’s Order dated June 24, 2022, as Tesla:

(a) Failed to produce all responsive documents to Requests for Production Nos. 6 and 7 regarding other similar incidents of Autopilot and airbag failures, respectively;

(b) Failed to identify all responsive other similar incidents in response to Special Interrogatory No. 13 regarding Autopilot failure;

(c) Failed to correct its inaccurate Notice of Ruling which misstated the Court’s ruling on Request for Production Nos. 6 and 7 and Special Interrogatory No. 13, in direct contravention of the Court’s June 24, 2022 Minute Order; and

(d) Failed to serve verifications to its responses to the Requests and the Interrogatories.

ANALYSIS

“Except as provided in subdivision (j), if a party fails to obey an order compelling further response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (CCP §2031.310(i).)

“If a party then fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (CCP §2030.300(e).)

Here, on June 24, 2022, this Court compelled further responses to RPDs 6 and7 and SROG 13. Plaintiff accurately pointed out in this motion how Defendant’s further responses were not code compliant and how Defendant unilaterally limited the scope of the further responses. Further, Defendant’s argument that this motion is untimely is not supported by any code sections or case law.

Thus, Plaintiff has met its burden in demonstrating Defendant failed to comply with the June 24, 2022, Court Order.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s first request for “issue sanctions against Tesla, establishing that prior to the subject incident, July 6, 2019, Tesla was on notice of defects in its Autopilot and frontal airbag systems on the 2016 Model S Tesla,” and second request for “issue sanctions against Tesla, establishing that prior to the subject incident, July 6, 2019, Tesla was on notice of the use and failures of Autopilot on city streets,” are DENIED because the requests are not sufficiently tied to Tesla’s violation of the Court order and not adequately supported by Plaintiff’s presentation of facts here.

Plaintiff’s third request for “evidence sanctions against Tesla, barring Tesla from introducing any documents into evidence that would show that operating a vehicle on Autopilot is safer than operating without,” and fourth request for “evidence sanctions against Tesla, barring Tesla from introducing any documents into evidence that would show that Tesla was not on notice regarding (1) failures within its Autopilot system, and (2) use of Autopilot in city streets” are GRANTED because that information was properly requested by Plaintiff and Tesla neither produced such evidence nor failed to explain in a code-compliant manner why it could not do so.

Plaintiff’s fifth request for “monetary sanctions against Tesla in the amount of $114,310.00 for Tesla’s willful failure to obey the June 24, 2022, Court Order, due and payable to Justine within fourteen (14) days of the hearing on this Motion,” is Granted in part and Denied in part. The Court GRANTS sanctions against Tesla in the amount of $15,060.00, which in the Court’s view is a reasonable discovery sanction, for the amount of time Plaintiff took to prepare and argue this motion, based on a reasonable hourly rate of $375.00 per hour, and the $60.00 filing fee. Defendant is ordered to pay such sanctions within fourteen days of the hearing on this motion.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of this Court’s June 24, 2022, Minute Order is GRANTED.

Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s separate statement are OVERRULED because the objections themselves are overbroad and uncertain, and Plaintiff’s separate statement in support of this motion is sufficient.