Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 22GDCV00455, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22GDCV00455 Hearing Date: August 4, 2023 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 08/04/2023 – 10:00am
Case No: 22GDCV00455
Trial Date: 10/30/2023
Case Name: WALA ALI KHALAF, an individual, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-10
TENTATIVE
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Plaintiff,
Wala Ali Khalaf, moves for an order to strike Defendant, Mercedes-Benz USA,
LLC’s objections and compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for
Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 1-17.
Plaintiff
brings this Motion pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2031.310
and 2031.320, on the grounds that Defendant failed to provide adequate
responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs, which seek documents relevant to her Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act (“the Act”) causes of action.
Procedural
Moving
Party: Plaintiff, Wala Ali Khalaf
Responding Party: Defendant, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Defendant or MBUSA)
Proof
of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok
Proper Address (CCP §1013, §1013a, §1013b) : Ok
Moving
Papers: Notice/Motion; Separate Statement; Proposed Order; Serrano Declaration
Opposition
Papers: Opposition; Separate Statement; Gallagher Declaration; Cinquepalmi
Declaration
Reply
Papers: No Reply
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff,
Wala Ali Khalaf, filed a Complaint on 07/26/2022. On April 7, 2023, this Court
heard Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court granted
Defendant’s motion for judgement on the pleadings on all three causes of action
and granted leave to amend.
On
04/27/2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint 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
instant action surrounds allegations pertaining to a 2021 Mercedes-Benz GLB250W
that Plaintiff leased on March 27, 2021.
The
instant motion pertains to compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests
for Production, Set Two.
MOVING
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff
argues that Defendant served boilerplate objections and inadequate,
non-responsive answers to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set Two.
Plaintiff argues that she seeks documents directly related to: (1) Plaintiff’s
own vehicle, including Xentry reports archiving the fault codes and defects
each time the Subject Vehicle was presented for repair (Request Nos. 2, 3, 4);
(2) Defendant’s warranty and repurchase policies, procedures, and practices
(Request Nos. 1, 5 and 6); (3) Defendant’s internal investigations of the same
or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model (Request
Nos. 7-17; also including Xentry reports)
[Plaintiff
notes in footnote 2 on page 2 of the motion that “Xentry” documents are
internal reports which archive all fault codes and repair instructions when
diagnostic scans are performed on MBUSA vehicles, including the Subject
Vehicle.]
OPPOSITION
ARGUMENTS
Opposition
argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because: (1) Plaintiff’s
counsel failed to meet and confer; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion and discovery
requests are overly broad and improper and seek responses and documents that
are well beyond the scope of this case and are unduly burdensome; (3)
Plaintiff’s requests are duplicative of previous requests for production that
were already served and responded to; (4) Plaintiff has not demonstrated that
the information and documents sought are relevant; and (5) Plaintiff has
ignored MBUSA’s proper discovery responses.
ANALYSIS
45-Day Requirement
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, it appears as if this motion is timely. Plaintiff
alleges that on May 2, 2023, Defendant served boilerplate objections along with
minimal substantive responses to Plaintiff’s Set Two of Plaintiff’s RFPs.
Plaintiff also alleges that to date; no verifications have been provided and
that Defendant’s responses consisted of boilerplate objections and responses
that were not code compliant. Plaintiff also states that no document production
accompanied Defendant’s responses. (Pl. Mot. p.6.)
The instant motion was filed and served by email on
May 31, 2023 and is therefore within 45 days from the service of the responses.
Meet and Confer
“The
motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section
2016.040.” (CCP §2031.310(b)(2).)
Moving party alleged it
met and conferred in ¶22 of the Serrano Declaration. Further, Serrano attached
Exhibit 6 which contained the meet and confer letter.
In Opposition, Defendant
argues that Plaintiff did not meet and confer prior to filing the instant
motion.
The Court finds
Defendant’s argument unavailing.
On page 7 of the
moving papers, Plaintiff stated, “On May 12, 2023, having not received a
response from Defendant’s counsel regarding Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter
dated May 4, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel to inquire
about Defendant’s position over the discovery issue raised, and to set up a
time to conduct a telephonic conference.”
In Opposition,
Defendant states
That same day, undersigned Defense counsel responded stating that she
is happy to meet and confer and requested Plaintiff’s counsel’s availability
for a call. Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email saying: “Monday @ 12:00pm please
confirm.” The parties did not exchange any additional emails regarding the
discovery requests at issue nor did the parties have a call to discuss.
(Def. Oppo. p. 3.)
The Court notes as
follows, “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is
adequate also involves the exercise of discretion. The level of effort at
informal resolution which satisfies the “reasonable and good faith attempt”
standard depends upon the circumstances.” (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998)
67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.) Further, “Undoubtedly the discovery statutes vest a
wide discretion on the trial court in granting or denying discovery.” (Greyhound
Corp. v. Superior Court In and For Merced County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355,
378.)
Here, Plaintiff
sufficiently met and conferred. Defendant tries to suggest, without citing any
legal support, that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer for failing to follow
up and confirm a call. The Court finds this argument unavailing, and if
anything, Defendant’s own explanation of the series of events seems to indicate
that Defendant was the party unwilling to meet and confer based on Defendant
not responding to Plaintiff’s email wherein Plaintiff’s counsel tried to confirm
a time and Defendant’s counsel failed to respond.
LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION
CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that a party demanding a document
inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if
the demanding party deems that:
“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is
incomplete.
(2) A
representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
(3)
An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”
Under
CCP § 2031.310 (b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good
cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”
ANALYSIS
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1
All
DOCUMENTS referencing, evidencing, and/or relating to YOUR policies,
procedures, or guidelines for determining whether a vehicle is eligible for a
vehicle repurchase under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
Objection.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. This request is
overinclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. Moreover, this
responding party objects to the extent that this request calls for information
equally available to the propounding/requesting party and/or created by and in
the possession of third parties. This responding party further objects to the
extent that this request seeks information protected from disclosure by the
right of privacy and calls for the disclosure of confidential and proprietary
information and trade secrets. This responding party also objects to the extent
that it violates any privilege, including but not limited to the
attorney-client, work-product and/or consulting expert privileges. This responding
party objects to the extent this request seeks irrelevant information and is
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This
request was previously asked and responded/objected to and Plaintiff cannot
propound the same requests multiple times. (See Sexton v. Superior Court
(1987) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1408, citing to Professional Colleges, Magna
Institute, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 207 CA 3d 490.)
Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
this responding party responds as follows:
This responding party evaluates each case in good
faith in accordance with the provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act (Civil Code §1790, et seq.). This responding party is producing Better
Business Bureau’s California Lemon Law Summary and BBB Auto Line documents.
Glovebox materials were previously produced. also be produced if this
responding party no longer has them in their possession. Following a diligent search and
reasonable inquiry, the documents produced in Exhibit A, along with the documents
produced previously, are all of the responsive documents or things relevant to
this request that are currently in the possession, custody, or control of
responding party, and to which no objection is being made.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 1
Defendant’s
objection as to overly broad is sustained. Plaintiff did not establish good
cause for the instant request. The burden is on the moving party to show both
relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed
Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is established by the moving
party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections
made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42
Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.) Plaintiff did not even attempt to explain why such a
broad scope of discovery is relevant to other vehicles that are not the same
make, model, and year of the subject vehicle, nor did Plaintiff attempt to
explain why it did not limit the time frame for the instant request.
However, the response is evasive. For instance,
Defendant appears to object in part, but Defendant did not comply with 2031.240.
Further, to the extent Defendant is saying it will comply, Defendant appears to
limit its response by specifically enumerating what it will produce, which
seems evasive.
Where Defendant is stating it will comply, 2031.220 applies
and states, “ A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection,
copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular
demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or
sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in
part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the
possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is
being made will be included in the production.”
To the extent Defendant is objecting in part,
Defendant did not comply with 2031.240 which states:
(a) If only part of an item or category of item
in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the
response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of
inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.
(b) If the responding party objects to the demand
for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item,
the response shall do both of the following:
(1) Identify with particularity any document,
tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any
category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.
(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the
objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular
privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the
information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with
Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.
(c) (1) If
an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information
sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual
information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including,
if necessary, a privilege log.
(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify
the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law.
Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive
change in case law.
Defendant is thus to provide a code-compliant response
hereto, under oath and without further objection, and to produce the responsive
documents and things within 20 days.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2
All
DOCUMENTS regarding any service, warranty, and other DOCUMENTS that relate to,
or may relate to the alleged defect in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, that YOU issued to
any dealer, regional or zone offices, fleet purchasers, or other entities.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2
Objection.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. This request is
overinclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. Plaintiff’s
vehicle is a 2021 Mercedes-Benz GLB250W, 2.0L, CVT Automatic Transmission, not
simply a “2021 Mercedes Benz GLB250W” as identified in Plaintiff’s discovery
requests. The 2021 Mercedes-Benz GLB250W comes in different
engine/transmission/trim combinations, but Plaintiff’s definition (and
therefore this request) is not narrowly tailored to the actual vehicle in
question, making this request particularly overbroad, vague, ambiguous, and
unduly burdensome. MBUSA objects to this omnibus request as not relevant to the
subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence, and as compound, overly broad, unduly burdensome,
harassing, and lacking the requisite specificity required by the Code of Civil
Procedure Section 2031.030(c)(1). The vagueness of the wording in this request
evidences an intent to harass. The burden and expense of searching for and
responding to this document request outweigh any potential benefit of such
discovery, taking into account the amount in controversy, the importance of the
issues in the litigation, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the
dispute. MBUSA also objects to this request to the extent it violates the
privacy rights of third persons and/or seeks documents that are protected as
confidential, proprietary, and/or commercially sensitive and/or documents
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the consulting expert privilege,
and the attorney work-product doctrine. This request is not complete in and of
itself, and incorporates unspecified external information and documents. This
request was previously asked and responded/objected to and Plaintiff cannot
propound the same requests multiple times. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1987)
58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1408, citing to Professional Colleges, Magna Institute,
Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 207 CA 3d 490.)
Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
this responding party responds as follows:
Following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
the documents previously produced, are all of the responsive documents or
things relevant to this request that are currently in the possession, custody,
or control of responding party, and to which no objection is being made, which
includes the service records for the subject vehicle and technical service
bulletins.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 2
Objections
overruled. Good cause for this RFP is
apparent. Motion as to RFP 2 is granted.
Defendant is thus to provide a code-compliant response hereto, under
oath and without objection, and to produce the responsive documents and things
within 20 days.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
Produce all DOCUMENTS, including live telephone call records, audio records,
tape recordings, voice messaging records, caller message recordings, digital
voice recordings, interactive voice response unit (IVR/VRV) recordings, unified
messaging files, and computer-based voice mail files between YOU and/or YOUR
call center representative(s) and YOUR authorized dealers regarding the SUBJECT
VEHICLE.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. This request
is overinclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. Moreover,
this responding party objects to the extent that this request calls for
information equally available to the propounding/requesting party and/or
created by and in the possession of third parties. This responding party
further objects to the extent that this request seeks information protected
from disclosure by the right of privacy and calls for the disclosure of
confidential and proprietary information. This responding party also objects to
the extent that it violates any privilege, including but not limited to the
attorney-client, work-product and/or consulting expert privileges. In addition,
this responding party objects to the extent this request seeks irrelevant
information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
this responding party responds as follows:
Following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
the documents previously produced are all of the responsive documents or things
relevant to this request that are currently in the possession, custody, or
control of responding party, and to which no objection is being made.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 3
Plaintiff’s
motion to compel further responses to RFP 3 is GRANTED. Defendant’s response is evasive. It first
asserted objections. The objections did not comply with 2031.240. Confusingly,
despite objecting, Defendant also simultaneously appears to state it is
complying with the request. Good cause for this RFP is apparent. Motion as to
RFP 3 is granted. Defendant is thus to
provide a code-compliant response hereto, under oath and without objection, and
to produce the responsive documents and things within 20 days.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4
All
DOCUMENTS regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE that are within YOUR Customer Relations
Center.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4
Objection.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. This request is
overinclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. Moreover, this
responding party objects to the extent that this request calls for information
equally available to the propounding/requesting party and/or created by and in
the possession of third parties. MBUSA also objects to this request to the
extent it violates the privacy rights of third persons and/or seeks documents
that are protected as confidential, proprietary, and/or commercially sensitive
and/or documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the consulting
expert privilege, and the attorney work-product doctrine. This responding party
also objects to the extent that it violates any privilege, including but not
limited to the attorney-client, work-product and/or consulting expert
privileges. This responding party objects to the extent this interrogatory
seeks irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
This request was previously asked and
responded/objected to and Plaintiff cannot propound the same requests multiple
times. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1987) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1408, citing
to Professional Colleges, Magna Institute, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 207 CA 3d
490.)
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 4
Defendant’s
objections did not comply with 2031.240. Defendant’s objections were
boilerplate.
Defendant’s argument that this request was previously
asked and responded/objected to, and Plaintiff cannot propound the same
requests multiple times is unavailing. Defendant submitted no proof in either
its separate statement, motion, or declarations that this request was already
propounded. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 4 is GRANTED. Defendant is thus to provide a code-compliant
response hereto, under oath and without objection, and to produce the
responsive documents and things within 20 days.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5
YOUR
recall policy and procedure.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5
Objection.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. This request is
overinclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. Moreover, this
responding party objects to the extent that this request calls for information
equally available to the propounding/requesting party and/or created by and in
the possession of third parties. MBUSA also objects to this request to the
extent it violates the privacy rights of third persons and/or seeks documents
that are protected as confidential, proprietary, and/or commercially sensitive
and/or documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the consulting
expert privilege, and the attorney work-product doctrine. This responding party
objects to the extent this request seeks irrelevant information and is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 5
Plaintiff
did not meet its burden in establishing good cause for the instant request. The
instant request is not tailored to the vehicles that are the same make, model,
and year of the subject vehicle and is not limited in time and scope.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 5 is DENIED.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6
All
DOCUMENTS that YOU use, since 2016, to evaluate consumers’ requests for
repurchases pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6
Objection.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. This request is
overinclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. Moreover, this
responding party objects to the extent that this request calls for information
equally available to the propounding/requesting party and/or created by and in
the possession of third parties. MBUSA also objects to this request to the
extent it violates the privacy rights of third persons and/or seeks documents
that are protected as confidential, proprietary, and/or commercially sensitive
and/or documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the consulting
expert privilege, and the attorney work-product doctrine. This responding party
objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks irrelevant information and is
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This
request was previously asked and responded/objected to, and Plaintiff cannot
propound the same requests multiple times. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1987)
58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1408, citing to Professional Colleges, Magna Institute,
Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 207 CA 3d 490.)
Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
this responding party responds as follows:
This responding party evaluates each case in good
faith in accordance with the provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act (Civil Code §1790, et seq.). This responding party has produced the Better
Business Bureau’s California Lemon Law Summary and BBB Auto Line documents.
Glovebox materials were also previously produced. Following a diligent search
and reasonable inquiry, the documents produced previously, are all of the
responsive documents or things relevant to this request that are currently in
the possession, custody, or control of responding party, and to which no
objection is being made.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 6
Plaintiff
did not meet its burden in establishing good cause. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel further responses to RFP 6 is DENIED.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7
All
DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails,
concerning, referring, or relating to any field technical reports from YOUR
agents, representatives, or employees to YOU which provide YOU with information
relating to warranty parts replacement trends relating to the POWERTRAIN
DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7
Objection.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. This request is
overinclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. This request is
especially subject to these objections due to the definition of the term
“POWERTRAIN DEFECTS”. Plaintiffs’ definition fails to delineate what defect it
relates to and instead seems to combine together numerous, partially undefined,
and unrelated issues. Plaintiff also do not identify what constitutes a
“concern identified in the repair history” further vague and not complete in
and of itself. Finally, the “POWERTRAIN DEFECTS” definition effectively creates
multiple subparts for this request, making it further objectionable and
compound. This request is over-inclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
oppressive. Moreover, this responding party objects to the extent that this
request calls for information equally available to the propounding/requesting
party and/or created by and in the possession of third parties. This responding
party further objects to the extent that this request seeks information
protected from disclosure by the right of privacy and calls for the disclosure
of confidential and proprietary information. This responding party also objects
to the extent that it violates any privilege, including but not limited to the
attorney-client, work-product and/or consulting expert privileges. In addition,
this responding party objects to the extent this request seeks irrelevant
information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 7
Prpounding party’s/movant’s definition of “POWERTRAIN
DEFECTS” shall be understood to mean such defects which result in symptoms
including: defects involving multiple illuminations of the check engine light;
storage of fault code P219C77; defects involving the performance of LI
01.30-P072328; defects involving vehicle stalling; defects involving strong
gasoline odor emitting from vehicle; defects involving fuel leak found within
injector no. 1; defects involving pinched sealing within fuel rail, requiring
replacement of fuel injector; defects preventing vehicle from cranking or
starting engine; defects causing loss of power upon acceleration; defects causing
vehicle to swerve left to right upon accelerating from complete stops; storage
of fault code P02FF02; defects involving defects involving illumination of all
malfunction lights on instrument cluster; defects involving the performance of
Campaign Recall 2021060021; powertrain defects concerning any “XENTRY” reports;
powertrain defects relating to any Product Technical Support System (“PTSS”)
cases; and/or other similar concerns identified in the repair history for the
SUBJECT VEHICLE, is sufficiently narrow and specific.
Defendant’s objections are overruled. Good cause for
this RFP is apparent. Motion as to RFP 7 is Granted. Defendant is thus to provide a code-compliant
response hereto, under oath and without objection, and to produce the
responsive documents and things within 20 days.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8
All
DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails,
concerning, referring, or relating to YOUR decision to issue any notices,
letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins, and
recalls concerning the POWERTRAIN DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make,
and model as the Subject Vehicle.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8
Objection.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. This request is
overinclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. This request is
especially subject to these objections due to the definition of the term
“POWERTRAIN DEFECTS”. Plaintiff’s definition fails to delineate what defect it
relates to and instead seems to combine together numerous, partially undefined,
and unrelated issues. Plaintiff also do not identify what constitutes a
“concern identified in the repair history” further vague and not complete in
and of itself. Finally, the “POWERTRAIN DEFECTS” definition effectively creates
multiple subparts for this request, making it further objectionable and
compound. This request is over-inclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
oppressive. Moreover, this responding party objects to the extent that this
request calls for information equally available to the propounding/requesting
party and/or created by and in the possession of third parties. This responding
party further objects to the extent that this request seeks information protected
from disclosure by the right of privacy and calls for the disclosure of
confidential and proprietary information. This responding party also objects to
the extent that it violates any privilege, including but not limited to the
attorney-client, work-product and/or consulting expert privileges. In addition,
this responding party objects to the extent this request seeks irrelevant
information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
this responding party responds as follows:
This responding party will produce technical service
bulletins applicable to the subject vehicle with regards to the
issues/components referred to in Plaintiff’s complaint and service records to
the extent they have not already been produced.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 8
Defendant’s
boilerplate objections hereto are overruled. Further, the objections don’t
comply with 2031.240. Also, for this response, as opposed to 7, responding
party says how they will produce technical service bulletins. This does not
comply with Defendant stating they will comply in full or in part under
2031.220. Good cause for this RFP is apparent. Motion as to RFP 8 is
Granted. Defendant is thus to provide a
code-compliant response hereto, under oath and without objection, and to
produce the responsive documents and things within 20 days.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9
All
DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails,
concerning, referring, or relating to any field technical reports from YOUR
agents, representatives, or employees to YOU which provide YOU with information
relating to common parts failures relating to the POWERTRAIN DEFECTS in
vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9
Objection.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. This request is
overinclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. This request is
especially subject to these objections due to the definition of the term
“POWERTRAIN DEFECTS”. Plaintiff’s definition fails to delineate what defect it
relates to and instead seems to combine together numerous, partially undefined,
and unrelated issues. Plaintiff also do not identify what constitutes a
“concern identified in the repair history” further vague and not complete in
and of itself. Finally, the “POWERTRAIN DEFECTS” definition effectively creates
multiple subparts for this request, making it further objectionable and
compound. This request is over-inclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
oppressive. Moreover, this responding party objects to the extent that this
request calls for information equally available to the propounding/requesting
party and/or created by and in the possession of third parties. This responding
party further objects to the extent that this request seeks information
protected from disclosure by the right of privacy and calls for the disclosure
of confidential and proprietary information. This responding party also objects
to the extent that it violates any privilege, including but not limited to the
attorney-client, work-product and/or consulting expert privileges. In addition,
this responding party objects to the extent this request seeks irrelevant
information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. This responding party further objects to this request as
Plaintiff has made no attempt to narrow it to the facts of this case.
Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act or any other applicable law, is entirely unrelated to
other Mercedes-Benz vehicles. This request was previously asked and
responded/objected to and Plaintiff cannot propound the same requests multiple
times. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1987) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1408, citing
to Professional Colleges, Magna Institute, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 207 CA 3d
490.)
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 9
Defendant
again asserts boilerplate objections, which are again overruled. Further, the
objections don’t comply with 2031.240. Good cause for this RFP is apparent.
Motion as to RFP 9 is Granted. Defendant
is thus to provide a code-compliant response hereto, under oath and without
objection, and to produce the responsive documents and things within 20 days.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10
All
DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails,
concerning, referring, or relating to any National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (“NHTSA”) complaints regarding the POWERTRAIN DEFECTS in
vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10
Objection.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. This request is
especially subject to these objections due to the definition of the term
“POWERTRAIN DEFECTS”. Plaintiff’s definition fails to delineate what defect it
relates to and instead seems to combine together numerous, partially undefined,
and unrelated issues. Plaintiff also does not identify what constitutes a
“concern identified in the repair history” further vague and not complete in
and of itself. Finally, the “POWERTRAIN DEFECTS” definition effectively creates
multiple subparts for this request, making it further objectionable and
compound. This request is over-inclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
oppressive. This request is particularly overbroad and unduly burdensome because
Plaintiff’s definition of SUBJECT VEHICLE because 2021 Mercedes-Benz GLB250W
come with different engine and transmission combinations, body styles,
infotainment systems, and trim levels, all of which are relevant here. This
responding party objects to this omnibus request as not relevant to the subject
matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, and as compound, overly broad, unduly burdensome,
harassing, and lacking the requisite specificity required by the Code of Civil
Procedure Section 2031.030(c)(1). The vagueness of the wording in this request
evidences an intent to harass. The burden and expense of searching for and
responding to this document request outweigh any potential benefit of such discovery,
taking into account the amount in controversy, the importance of the issues in
the litigation, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the dispute.
This responding party also objects to this request to the extent it violates
the privacy rights of third persons and/or seeks documents that are protected
as confidential, proprietary, and/or commercially sensitive and/or documents
protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product
doctrine. This responding party further objects to this request as Plaintiff
has made no attempt to narrow it to the facts of this case. Specifically,
whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act or any other applicable law, is entirely unrelated to other Mercedes-Benz
vehicles.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 10
For
the reasons stated hereinabove, as to RFP’s 6 through 9, Motion as to RFP 10 is
Granted. Defendant is thus to provide a
code-compliant response hereto, under oath and without objection, and to
produce the responsive documents and things within 20 days.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11
All
DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails,
concerning, referring, or relating to any Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation (“TREAD”) complaints regarding the POWERTRAIN
DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11
Objection.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. This request is
especially subject to these objections due to the definition of the term
“POWERTRAIN DEFECTS”. Plaintiff’s definition fails to delineate what defect it
relates to and instead seems to combine together numerous, partially undefined,
and unrelated issues. Plaintiff also does not identify what constitutes a
“concern identified in the repair history” further vague and not complete in
and of itself. Finally, the “POWERTRAIN DEFECTS” definition effectively creates
multiple subparts for this request, making it further objectionable and
compound. This request is over-inclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
oppressive. This request is particularly overbroad and unduly burdensome because
Plaintiff’s definition of SUBJECT VEHICLE because 2021 Mercedes-Benz GLB250W
come with different engine and transmission combinations, body styles,
infotainment systems, and trim levels, all of which are relevant here. This
responding party objects to this omnibus request as not relevant to the subject
matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, and as compound, overly broad, unduly burdensome,
harassing, and lacking the requisite specificity required by the Code of Civil
Procedure Section 2031.030(c)(1). The vagueness of the wording in this request
evidences an intent to harass. The burden and expense of searching for and
responding to this document request outweigh any potential benefit of such discovery,
taking into account the amount in controversy, the importance of the issues in
the litigation, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the dispute.
This responding party also objects to this request to the extent it violates
the privacy rights of third persons and/or seeks documents that are protected
as confidential, proprietary, and/or commercially sensitive and/or documents
protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product
doctrine. This responding party further objects to this request as Plaintiff
has made no attempt to narrow it to the facts of this case. Specifically,
whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act or any other applicable law, is entirely unrelated to other Mercedes-Benz
vehicles.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 11
For
the reasons stated hereinabove, as to RFP’s 6 through 9, Motion as to RFP 11 is
Granted. Defendant is thus to provide a
code-compliant response hereto, under oath and without objection, and to
produce the responsive documents and things within 20 days.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12
All
DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails,
concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims
related to POWERTRAIN DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as
the Subject Vehicle, including any databases in YOUR possession with
information from dealers, service departments, part departments, or warranty
departments, and all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint,
claim or reported failure. This request shall be understood to include a search
of YOUR Analytical Warranty System. This Request requires Defendant to produce
these DOCUMENTS in their entirety and will all fields, columns, tables, rows,
and/or datapoints, and all available information (other than any identifying
customer contact information) including field names, codes, symptom codes, part
numbers, claim numbers, and/or all other information that exists within these
DOCUMENTS.]
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12
Objection.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. This request is
especially subject to these objections due to the definition of the term
“POWERTRAIN DEFECTS”. Plaintiff’s definition fails to delineate what defect it
relates to and instead seems to combine together numerous, partially undefined,
and unrelated issues. Plaintiff also does not identify what constitutes a
“concern identified in the repair history” further vague and not complete in
and of itself. Finally, the “POWERTRAIN DEFECTS” definition effectively creates
multiple subparts for this request, making it further objectionable and
compound. This request is over-inclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
oppressive. This request is particularly overbroad and unduly burdensome because
Plaintiff’s definition of SUBJECT VEHICLE because 2021 Mercedes-Benz GLB250W
come with different engine and transmission combinations, body styles,
infotainment systems, and trim levels, all of which are relevant here. This
responding party objects to this omnibus request as not relevant to the subject
matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, and as compound, overly broad, unduly burdensome,
harassing, and lacking the requisite specificity required by the Code of Civil
Procedure Section 2031.030(c)(1). The vagueness of the wording in this request
evidences an intent to harass. The burden and expense of searching for and
responding to this document request outweigh any potential benefit of such discovery,
taking into account the amount in controversy, the importance of the issues in
the litigation, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the dispute.
This responding party also objects to this request to the extent it violates
the privacy rights of third persons and/or seeks documents that are protected
as confidential, proprietary, and/or commercially sensitive and/or documents
protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product
doctrine. This responding party further objects to this request as Plaintiff
has made no attempt to narrow it to the facts of this case. Specifically,
whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act or any other applicable law, is entirely unrelated to other Mercedes-Benz
vehicles.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 12
For
the reasons stated hereinabove, as to RFP’s 6 through 9, Motion as to RFP 12 is
Granted. Defendant is thus to provide a
code-compliant response hereto, under oath and without objection, and to
produce the responsive documents and things within 20 days.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13
All
DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and emails within YOUR
customer satisfaction surveys, or the equivalent, regarding the POWERTRAIN
DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13
Objection.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. This request is
especially subject to these objections due to the definition of the term “POWERTRAIN
DEFECTS”. Plaintiff’s definition fails to delineate what defect it relates to
and instead seems to combine together numerous, partially undefined, and
unrelated issues. Plaintiff also does not identify what constitutes a “concern
identified in the repair history” further vague and not complete in and of
itself. Finally, the “POWERTRAIN DEFECTS” definition effectively creates
multiple subparts for this request, making it further objectionable and
compound. This request is over-inclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
oppressive. This request is particularly overbroad and unduly burdensome
because Plaintiff’s definition of SUBJECT VEHICLE because 2021 Mercedes-Benz
GLB250W come with different engine and transmission combinations, body styles,
infotainment systems, and trim levels, all of which are relevant here.
This responding party objects to this omnibus request
as not relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and as compound, overly broad,
unduly burdensome, harassing, and lacking the requisite specificity required by
the Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.030(c)(1). The vagueness of the
wording in this request evidences an intent to harass. The burden and expense
of searching for and responding to this document request outweigh any potential
benefit of such discovery, taking into account the amount in controversy, the
importance of the issues in the litigation, and the importance of the discovery
in resolving the dispute. This responding party also objects to this request to
the extent it violates the privacy rights of third persons and/or seeks
documents that are protected as confidential, proprietary, and/or commercially
sensitive and/or documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and the
attorney work-product doctrine. This responding party further objects to this
request as Plaintiff has made no attempt to narrow it to the facts of this
case. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act or any other applicable law, is entirely
unrelated to other Mercedes-Benz vehicles.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 13
For
the reasons stated hereinabove, as to RFP’s 6 through 9, Motion as to RFP 13 is
Granted. Defendant is thus to provide a
code-compliant response hereto, under oath and without objection, and to
produce the responsive documents and things within 20 days.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14
All
DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails,
concerning any internal analysis or investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf
regarding POWERTRAIN DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as
the Subject Vehicle. [This request shall be interpreted to include any such
investigation to determine the root cause of such POWERTRAIN DEFECTS, any such
investigation to design a permanent repair procedure for such POWERTRAIN
DEFECTS, any such investigation into the failure rate of parts associated with
the POWERTRAIN DEFECTS, any cost analysis for implementing a proposed repair
procedure for such POWERTRAIN DEFECTS, and any savings analysis for not
implementing proposed repair procedures for such POWERTRAIN DEFECTS.]
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14
Objection.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. This request is
especially subject to these objections due to the definition of the term
“POWERTRAIN DEFECTS”. Plaintiff’s definition fails to delineate what defect it
relates to and instead seems to combine together numerous, partially undefined,
and unrelated issues. Plaintiff also does not identify what constitutes a
“concern identified in the repair history” further vague and not complete in
and of itself. Finally, the “POWERTRAIN DEFECTS” definition effectively creates
multiple subparts for this request, making it further objectionable and compound.
This request is over-inclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
oppressive. This request is particularly overbroad and unduly burdensome
because Plaintiff’s definition of SUBJECT VEHICLE because 2021 Mercedes-Benz
GLB250W come with different engine and transmission combinations, body styles,
infotainment systems, and trim levels, all of which are relevant here. This
responding party objects to this omnibus request as not relevant to the subject
matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, and as compound, overly broad, unduly burdensome,
harassing, and lacking the requisite specificity required by the Code of Civil
Procedure Section 2031.030(c)(1). The vagueness of the wording in this request
evidences an intent to harass. The burden and expense of searching for and
responding to this document request outweigh any potential benefit of such
discovery, taking into account the amount in controversy, the importance of the
issues in the litigation, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the
dispute. This responding party also objects to this request to the extent it
violates the privacy rights of third persons and/or seeks documents that are
protected as confidential, proprietary, and/or commercially sensitive and/or
documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney
work-product doctrine. This responding party further objects to this request as
Plaintiff has made no attempt to narrow it to the facts of this case.
Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act or any other applicable law, is entirely unrelated to
other Mercedes- Benz vehicles. This request was previously asked and
responded/objected to and Plaintiff cannot propound the same requests multiple
times. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1987) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1408, citing
to Professional Colleges, Magna Institute, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 207 CA 3d
490.)
TENATIVE RULING RFP 14
For
the reasons stated hereinabove, as to RFP’s 6 through 9, Motion as to RFP 14 is
Granted. Defendant is thus to provide a
code-compliant response hereto, under oath and without objection, and to
produce the responsive documents and things within 20 days.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15
All
DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails,
concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims
related to the POWERTRAIN DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model
as the Subject Vehicle.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15
Objection.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. This request is
overinclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. This request is
especially subject to these objections due to the definition of the term
“POWERTRAIN DEFECTS”. Plaintiff’s definition fails to delineate what defect it
relates to and instead seems to combine together numerous, partially undefined,
and unrelated issues. Plaintiff also do not identify what constitutes a
“concern identified in the repair history” further vague and not complete in
and of itself. Finally, the “POWERTRAIN DEFECTS” definition effectively creates
multiple subparts for this request, making it further objectionable and
compound. This request is over-inclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
oppressive. Moreover, this responding party objects to the extent that this
request calls for information equally available to the propounding/requesting
party and/or created by and in the possession of third parties. This responding
party further objects to the extent that this request seeks information
protected from disclosure by the right of privacy and calls for the disclosure
of confidential and proprietary information. This responding party also objects
to the extent that it violates any privilege, including but not limited to the
attorney-client, work-product and/or consulting expert privileges. In addition,
this responding party objects to the extent this request seeks irrelevant
information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. This request was previously asked and responded/objected
to and Plaintiff cannot propound the same requests multiple times. (See Sexton
v. Superior Court (1987) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1408, citing to Professional
Colleges, Magna Institute, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 207 CA 3d 490.)
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 15
For
the reasons stated hereinabove, as to RFP’s 6 through 9, Motion as to RFP 15 is
Granted. Defendant is thus to provide a
code-compliant response hereto, under oath and without objection, and to
produce the responsive documents and things within 20 days.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16
All
DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails,
concerning, referring, or relating to Failure Mode and Effects Analysis reports
(or comparable root cause analyses) concerning the POWERTRAIN DEFECTS in
vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16
Objection.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. This request is
overinclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. This request is
especially subject to these objections due to the definition of the term
“POWERTRAIN DEFECTS”. Plaintiff’s definition fails to delineate what defect it
relates to and instead seems to combine together numerous, partially undefined,
and unrelated issues. Plaintiff also do not identify what constitutes a “concern
identified in the repair history” 65urtherr vague and not complete in and of
itself. Finally, the “POWERTRAIN DEFECTS” definition effectively creates
multiple subparts for this request, making it further objectionable and
compound. This request is overinclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
oppressive. Moreover, this responding party objects to the extent that this
request calls for information equally available to the propounding/requesting
party and/or created by and in the possession of third parties. This responding
party further objects to the extent that this request seeks information
protected from disclosure by the right of privacy and calls for the disclosure
of confidential and proprietary information. This responding party also objects
to the extent that it violates any privilege, including but not limited to the
attorney-client, work-product and/or consulting expert privileges. In addition,
this responding party objects to the extent this request seeks irrelevant
information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 16
For
the reasons stated hereinabove, as to RFP’s 6 through 9, Motion as to RFP 16 is
Granted. Defendant is thus to provide a
code-compliant response hereto, under oath and without objection, and to
produce the responsive documents and things within 20 days.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17
All
DOCUMENTS related to any electronic mail (including current, backed-up and
archived programs, accounts, unified messaging, server-based e-mail, Web-based
e-mail, dial-up e-mail, user names and addresses, domain names and addresses,
e-mail messages, attachments, manual and automated mailing lists and mailing
list addresses) which in any way relate to POWERTRAIN DEFECTS in vehicles of
the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17
Objection.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. This request is
especially subject to these objections due to the definition of the term
“POWERTRAIN DEFECTS”. Plaintiff’s definition fails to delineate what defect it
relates to and instead seems to combine together numerous, partially undefined,
and unrelated issues. Plaintiff also does not identify what constitutes a
“concern identified in the repair history” further vague and not complete in
and of itself. Finally, the “POWERTRAIN DEFECTS” definition effectively creates
multiple subparts for this request, making it further objectionable and
compound. This request is over-inclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
oppressive. This request is particularly overbroad and unduly burdensome
because Plaintiff’s definition of SUBJECT VEHICLE because 2021 Mercedes-Benz
GLB250W come with different engine and transmission combinations, body styles,
infotainment systems, and trim levels, all of which are relevant here. This
responding party objects to this omnibus request as not relevant to the subject
matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, and as compound, overly broad, unduly burdensome,
harassing, and lacking the requisite specificity required by the Code of Civil
Procedure Section 2031.030(c)(1). The vagueness of the wording in this request
evidences an intent to harass. The burden and expense of searching for and
responding to this document request outweigh any potential benefit of such
discovery, taking into account the amount in controversy, the importance of the
issues in the litigation, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the
dispute. This responding party also objects to this request to the extent it
violates the privacy rights of third persons and/or seeks documents that are
protected as confidential, proprietary, and/or commercially sensitive and/or
documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney
work-product doctrine. This responding party further objects to this request as
Plaintiff has made no attempt to narrow it to the facts of this case.
Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act or any other applicable law, is entirely unrelated to
other Mercedes- Benz vehicles.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 17
For
the reasons stated hereinabove, as to RFP’s 6 through 9, Motion as to RFP 17 is
Granted. Defendant is thus to provide a
code-compliant response hereto, under oath and without objection, and to
produce the responsive documents and things within 20 days.
Overall, for entire motion
All
objections asserted by Defendant stating that the request was previously asked
and responded/objected to, and that Plaintiff cannot propound the same requests
multiple times are OVERRULED. Defendant submits no proof in any of its
opposition papers to support this argument.
For Defendant’s Separate Statement, Defendant labeled
RFP 1 as RFP 1 [sic] 38, RFP 2 [sic] 39, RFP 3[sic] 40, etc. The Court is
unclear as to why Defendant is labeling the requests as such.
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).)
Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant asked for nor provided
evidence in support of sanctions. No sanctions are awarded.