Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 22GDCV00311, Date: 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22GDCV00311 Hearing Date: February 24, 2023 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 02/24/2023-10:00am
Case No: 22GDCV00311
Trial Date: 08/14/2023
Case Name: LEO ROJO, an indiv; and ELVA ROJO, an indiv; v. HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA, a California Corporation, and DOES 1-10
RULING
ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
Oppo
and Reply Submitted
Proof
of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok
Proper Address: Yes/No
– The email address on the proof of service for the motion differs from the
email address on file with the Court. However, it appears as if Plaintiffs
received this motion because Plaintiffs filed an Opposition.
Moving
Papers: Notice of motion/motion; Declaration of Abigail White; Proposed Order
Opposition
Papers: Opposition; Declaration of Sarah E. Pfeffer
Reply
Papers: Reply; Declaration of Sasha Bassi
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Defendant,
Hyundai Motor America (HMA), moves to compel further full and complete verified
responses to HMA’s Requests for Production, Set One, against Plaintiffs Leo
Rojo and Elva Rojo. This motion is made pursuant to CCP §2031.300 on the
grounds that Plaintiffs failed, without justification to respond to this proper
discovery.
[The
Court notes that Defendant moved under the incorrect statute. The statute that
Defendant moved under, CCP §2031.300 pertains to compelling responses when the
party fails to serve a timely response. 2031.310 pertains to the rules on
compelling a further response.]
Defendant
requests the Court award monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’
counsel, Quill & Arrow, LLP, and in favor of Defendant in the sum of
$1,660.00 pursuant to CCP §2023.010 et seq. and 2031.300.
BACKGROUND
On
06/13/2022, Plaintiffs Leo Rojo and Elva Rojo filed a complaint against Hyundai
Motor America alleging three causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly
Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of
Implied Warranty, and (3) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2. The
complaint stems from the allegations surrounding the 2019 Hyundai Santa Fe that
Plaintiffs leased on January 27, 2019 and the alleges defects and nonconformities
to warranty.
Defendant states that
following a case management conference on November 15, 2022, the parties were
ordered by this Court to meet and confer regarding a possible arbitration
clause and some form of alternative dispute resolution. Defendant attaches
Exhibit A in the White Declaration for this Minute Order which states in
relevant part, “Counsel are ordered to meet and confer regarding a possible
arbitration clause and some form of alternative dispute resolution forthwith.
Arbitration and discussions to be completed no later than 06/23/2023. The Court
orders parties to meet and confer telephonically or via video conference,
e-mail and/or mail alone is insufficient.”
On November 4, 2022, HMA
propounded RFP, Set One, on Plaintiffs. Defendant argues that RFP, Set One,
contained two requests for production pertaining to the production of the
arbitration clause. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs refused to provide code
compliant responses to either of Defendant’s requests, served solely
boilerplate objections, and failed to meet and confer. Defendant argues that it
needs the full lease agreement, including the arbitration clause, in order to
be able to compel arbitration.
ANALYSIS
45 Days
Unless
notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified
response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific
later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in
writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to
the demand. (CCP §2031.310(c).)
Here, neither party addresses the timeliness of the
instant motion. According to Defendant’s motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed
Plaintiffs’ objections to HMA’s RFP, Set One, on December 2, 2022. The instant
motion was filed and served on December 20, 2022. Therefore, this motion is
timely.
Meet and Confer
“The
motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section
2016.040.” (CCP §2031.310(b)(2).)
Defendant alleges that on December 2, 2022 and
December 7, 2022, Defendant’s counsel met and conferred about Plaintiffs’ lack
of verified code compliant responses by sending emails on the aforementioned
dates. (Decl. White ¶6-7, Ex. D.) Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ counsel
never responded as of the filing of this motion; therefore, Plaintiffs did not
meet and confer.
In Opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant was in
fact the party that failed to meet and confer before filing the instant motion
because Defendant sent two emails consisting of two sentences each that
completely failed to address any of Plaintiffs’ objections to the RFPs.
Under 2016.040, “A meet and confer declaration in
support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith
attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (CCP
§2016.040.)
Exhibit D in the White Declaration of Defendant shows
the emails sent on December 2, 2022 and December 7, 2022. On December 2, 2022,
Defendant’s counsel stated via email, “Please provide substantive responses
with a document production by next Wednesday. Requests seeking sales and lease
documents are certainly reasonably calculated and appropriate.” (Ex. D.) On
December 7, 2022, Defendant’s counsel stated via email, “This is my second
email to meet and confer regarding the objections to lease and sales
documentation. Will your office be providing documents and complete responses?”
(Ex. D.)
Here, the Court finds that Defendant did not sufficiently
meet and confer. While Defendant is correct that Plaintiffs’ counsel did not
respond to Defendant’s emails, Defendant’s emails did not address any of the
objections that Plaintiffs raised in their responses. Further, Defendant’s
emails did not attempt to address each issue presented by the instant motion.
ANALYSIS
LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310,
the Court may order a responding party to serve a further response to a
request for production when the Court finds that any of the following
apply:
Unlike with requests to compel further
interrogatories, a moving party seeking to compel further responses for
requests for production must show good cause along with satisfaction of the
meet and confer requirement. (CCP§ 2031.310(b.) “Good cause” is
shown when a moving party provides sufficient facts that the requests are
relevant. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th
92, 97.)
DISCUSSION
Any
motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a
request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a
separate statement include a motion: to compel further responses to a demand
for inspection of documents or tangible things. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule
3.1345(a)(3).)
Here, moving party did not comply with this
requirement. Not only did moving party not provide a separate statement, but
moving party’s motion did not even state specifically what each request asked
for and Plaintiffs’ responses to each request. Defendant generally states in
its motion that the requests pertain to the lease of the vehicle along with any
arbitrations clauses. In Defendant’s declaration of White, Defendant included
the requests and the resultant responses, but there was no separate statement
that included this information; the Court had to search for it in the White
Declaration.
Defendant is encouraged to follow the California Rules
of Court with respect to the contents of a separate statement in CRC 3.1345(c).
CRC 3.1345(c) states as follows:
A separate
statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion
that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery
request and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate
statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any
other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.
Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference. The
separate statement must include-for each discovery request (e.g., each
interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection
demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested-the
following:
(1) The text of the request, interrogatory,
question, or inspection demand;
(2) The text of each response, answer, or
objection, and any further responses or answers;
(3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons
for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in
dispute;
(4) If necessary, the text of all definitions,
instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request
and the responses to it;
(5) If the response to a particular discovery
request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if
the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed
necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other
request and the response to it must be set forth; and
(6) If the pleadings, other documents in the
file, or other items of discovery are relevant to the motion, the party relying
on them must summarize each relevant document.
(CRC 3.1345(c),
emph. added.)
In Opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the
motion is moot because Plaintiffs served amended, verified responses to
Defendant’s RFP, Set One, on February 9, 2023. [For reference, this motion was
filed on December 20, 2022.]
In Reply, Defendant points out that it
wasn’t until February 9, 2023, the day Plaintiffs’ Opposition was due, that
Plaintiffs served amended responses. Further in Reply, Defendant argues that
the amended responses are also not code compliant.
However, the Court finds Plaintiffs’
argument more convincing that the instant motion is moot. Although the Reply
argues that the amended responses are not code compliant, the instant motion to
compel further responses was not based on the amended responses that were later
served by Plaintiffs. Further, in Defendant’s Reply, Defendant doesn’t state specifically
what the amended responses were. Defendant simply attached a declaration with
the amended responses. Further, Defendant’s Reply does not state specifically
state what is improper about each amended response, Defendant simply argues as
to what is generally wrong with Plaintiffs’ amended responses as a whole.
Further, just like Defendant’s initial motion, Defendant does not provide a
separate statement in Reply as to the amended responses.
SANCTIONS
“Except
as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction
under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person,
or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further
response to a demand, 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.” (CCP §2031.310(h).)
Here, moving party requested sanctions in
the amount of $1,660.00. Moving party cited to CRC 3.1348(a).
“The court may award sanctions under the
Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even
though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was
withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after
the motion was filed.” (CRC 3.1348(a).)
This rule would appear to be applicable
because Plaintiffs provided the responses after the motion was filed.
In Opposition, Plaintiffs cite as follows,
“Under section 2023.040, of the California Code of Civil Procedure, “[a]
request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person,
party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type
of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of
points and authorities and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts
supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (Oppo. p. 4.)
Here, the Court understands Plaintiffs’
argument as to the fact that the White declaration fails to set forth any facts
supporting the amount of any monetary sanctions sought. The White declaration
did in fact not set forth any facts as to how it arrived at its request in the
amount of $1,660.00. However, the Court is unclear as to what Plaintiffs’ opposition
is arguing when they argue, “Here, Defendant failed to identify every person,
party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, or the specific type
of sanctions sought. (SP Decl., ¶ 9; see also Def’s Mtn.).” (Oppo. p. 4.)
The Court DENIES Defendant’s request for
sanctions. Although Plaintiffs did not provide the amended responses until
after this motion was filed, and although Plaintiffs did not respond to
Defendant’s initial emails, Defendant’s meet and confer emails were inadequate
because they did not address the issues raised in the motion or what was wrong
with Plaintiffs’ responses. Further, Defendant did not provide a separate
statement when filing the instant motion, and Defendant did not provide a
declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of the monetary sanction
sought. The Court finds that issuance of a sanction against either party to
this motion would be unjust.