Judge David A. Rosen, Case 22GDCV00474 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 22GDCV00474, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCV00474 Hearing Date: February 17, 2023 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 02/17/2023 – 10:00am
Case No:22GDCV00474
Trial Date: 11/13/2023
Case Name: MARK W. OSSOLA, an indiv, v. MASERATI NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-10

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Moving Party: Plaintiff, Mark W. Ossola

Responding Party: Defendant, Maserati North America, Inc.

Opposition and Reply Submitted.

Moving Papers: Motion; Separate Statement; Proposed Order; Sogoyan Declaration

Opposition Papers: Memo; Separate Statement

Reply: Reply

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

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff, Mark W. Ossola, moves for an order to strike Defendant’s objections and compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (RPD), Set One, numbers 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 19-37.

Plaintiff brings this motion pursuant to CCP §2031.310 and 2031.320 on the grounds that Defendant waived its objections and failed to provide adequate response to Plaintiff’s RPDs, which seek documents relevant to their Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act causes of action.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action on 08/02/2022 against Defendant 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.

Plaintiff alleges that on May 24, 2018, Plaintiff purchased a 2018 Maserati Quattroporte, having VIN No.: ZAM56YPA2J1281646 ("the Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff alleges express warranties accompanied the sale of the Subject Vehicle to Plaintiff by which Maserati undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of Plaintiff’s vehicle or to provide compensation if there was a failure in such utility or performance. Further, Plaintiff alleges the subject vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to, electrical, engine, emission, and steering system defects.

PROCEDURAL

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).)

Neither moving nor opposing party addressed the timeliness of the instant motion. Here, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s request for production on October 20, 2022. Under the Court’s calculation, Plaintiff had until December 6, 2022 to file and serve this motion to compel further. (See CCP §1010.6(a)(3)(A)-(B).) Since the instant motion was filed and served on December 6, 2022, this motion is thus timely. Plaintiff notes how it asked Defendant’s counsel for an extension until January 5, 2023 to file a motion to compel, but Defendant’s counsel did not respond.

Meet and Confer
“The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP §2031.310(b)(2).)

Plaintiff adequately met and conferred as indicated in Paragraph 24 of the Sogoyan Declaration. (Decl. Sogoyan ¶24, Ex. 6.)

Opposition’s argument that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer is unavailing. Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter, and Plaintiff requested an extension to file this motion to further meet and confer, but Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s request for an extension to file this motion.

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Under §2031.210, the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:

(1)¿A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision I of Section 2031.030 and any related activities.

(2)¿A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item.

(3)¿An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.

(CCP §2031.210(a).)

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a), 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:

A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete;

A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

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.4^th 92, 97.)

ANALYSIS

TENTATIVE RULING RPD’s 17-31, 10, 11, 13, 14, 34, 35
In Defendant’s Opposition, Defendant indicated that it agreed to supplement or amend its responses to RPDs 17-31 and that these responses were served on December 6, 2022. [For reference, this motion was filed on December 6, 2022.] Further, Defendant’s separate statement indicates supplemental responses to RPDs 17-31 that were not part of Plaintiff’s moving separate statement, further indicating that Plaintiff did not have these supplemental responses when Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

Since Defendant is stating it provided supplemental responses to 17-31, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPD’s, Set One, Number 17-31 are denied as moot.

Further, although the Opposition itself did not state it provided amended responses to RPD’s 10, 11, 13, 14, 34, and 35, the Opposition Separate Statement indicates amended responses to RPD’s 10, 11, 13, 14, 34, and 35. Since Plaintiff’s separate statement did not contain these amended responses, presumably these amended responses were provided to Plaintiff after Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

Since Defendant’s separate statement indicates it provided amended responses to RPD’s 10, 11, 13, 14, 34 and 35, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPD’s, Set One, Numbers 10, 11, 13, 14, 34, and 35 are denied as moot.

RPD 5
All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any inspection of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

Response RPD 5
MNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in an attempt to comply with this request, MNA is unable to comply with this request because the responsive documents are not within its possession, custody or control. MNA refers Plaintiff to Maserati of Westlake, 3610 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91362, the independently owned and operated authorized repair facility who MNA believes to have performed service to the Subject Vehicle, and who may be in possession of additional responsive documents.

MNA otherwise objects to this request because it is overly broad, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the case. MNA also objects to this request because the phrase “Any inspection” is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 5
MNA’s objections in the second paragraph to the response are overruled because they are without merit and too general.

The remaining portion of MNA’s response in the first paragraph pertains to its inability to comply.

“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (CCP §2031.230.)

Here, MNA’s response in the first paragraph of the response appears to be code compliant as it stated it conducted a diligent search, it stated it’s unable to comply because the responsive documents are not in its possession, and it named the entity and address of the organization that may be in possession of the responsive documents.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPD 5 is DENIED. However, the Court does find Defendant’s objections in the second paragraph to this response to be overruled and thus stricken. The first paragraph of Defendant’s response is not stricken.

RPD 6
All photographs and videotapes of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

Responses RPD 6
MNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in an attempt to comply with this request, MNA is unable to comply with this request because the responsive documents are not within its possession, custody or control. MNA refers Plaintiff to Maserati of Westlake, 3610 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91362, the independently owned and operated authorized repair facility who MNA believes to have performed service to the Subject Vehicle, and who may be in possession of additional responsive documents.

MNA otherwise objects to this request because it is overly broad, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the case. MNA also objects to the extent that the request seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney work product doctrine.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 6
MNA’s objections in the second paragraph to the response are overruled because they are without merit and too general.

Since MNA’s objections are overruled, the remaining portion of MNA’s response pertains to its inability to comply.

Here, MNA’s response in the first paragraph appears to be code compliant as it stated it conducted a diligent search, it stated it’s unable to comply because the responsive documents are not in its possession, and it named the entity and address of the organization that may be in possession of the responsive documents.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPD 6 is DENIED. However, the Court does find Defendant’s objections in the second paragraph to this response to be overruled and thus stricken. The first paragraph of Defendant’s response is not stricken.

RPD 32
All DOCUMENTS evidencing or describing statistics for the number of repurchases and replacements Defendant has made in California in response to consumers’ personal requests (i.e., a consumer request without an attorney) from 2010 to present.

Response to RPD 32
MNA objects to this request because it is overly broad, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the case. MNA further objects as the terms “All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. MNA additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case and the request is unreasonably cumulative and duplicative.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 32
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.4^th 92, 97.)

Here, as to reasons to compel a further response, Plaintiff provides the same reason to compel as Plaintiff provided for every single request. Therefore, it is difficult to decipher Plaintiff’s explanation as to why a further response is necessary or that good cause has been established as to this request.. In fact, In Plaintiff’s separate statement, Plaintiff copy-pasted the same exact reasons to compel further for every single request, resulting in a separate statement of 140 pages. Additionally, in Plaintiff’s separate statement, Plaintiff argued how Defendant’s objections with respect to attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine are boilerplate and without merit. However, Defendant didn’t assert objections as to attorney-client privilege and work product in this response.

However, the Court does find Defendant’s objection in the second sentence of this response as to “All Documents” to be without merit and too general. “Documents” is a defined term. Therefore, this objection is overruled and stricken.

As to the first sentence containing objections and the third sentence containing objections in this response, the Court finds those objections to be proper. Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause as to why such a broad scope of documents is relevant. For example, this request doesn’t even limit the request to the subject vehicle, nor does this request limit the requests to vehicles that are the same make, model, and year of the subject vehicle. This request could pertain to multiple types of vehicles, and not necessarily vehicles that are the same make, model, and year of Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to RPD 32 is DENIED. However, the Court does find the second sentence of the response to be an objection without merit and too general and thus this objection is stricken.

RPD 33
All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe the numbers of owners 2018 Maserati Quattroporte vehicles who have complained of any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.

Response RPD 33
MNA objects to this request because it is overly broad, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the case. MNA further objects as the terms “All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe” and “conditions, defects, or nonconformities” are overly broad, vague and ambiguous. MNA additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case and the request is unreasonably cumulative and duplicative. MNA also objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” because they are overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by MNA.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 33
Motion to compel further response to RPD 33 is GRANTED. Defendant’s objections are without merit and too general and thus overruled and stricken.

RPD 36
All DOCUMENTS which describe or discuss above-average repair rates to 2018 Maserati Quattroporte vehicles.

Response RPD 36
MNA objects to this request because it is overly broad, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the case. MNA further objects as the term “All DOCUMENTS which describe or discuss” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. MNA additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case. MNA further objects to this request because the phrase “above-average repair rates” is vague, ambiguous, and lacks foundation.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 36
The Court finds the objections in Defendant’s first three sentences in this response to be without merit and too general; thus, the first three sentences in this response are stricken. However, the Court finds Defendant’s objection in the fourth sentence to be an appropriate objection. The term “above-average” does not appear to be a defined term, and it is vague and ambiguous. Motion to compel further responses to RPD 36 is DENIED.

RPD 37
All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe sales brochures, literature or any other promotional materials provided or distributed by YOU regarding vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

Response RPD 37
MNA objects to this request because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case. MNA specifically objects to the request for “All DOCUMENTS” as vague, ambiguous and lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. MNA also objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the term “YOU” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by MNA.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 37
Defendant’s objections are overruled as they are without merit and too general. However, moving party has the burden to show good cause to compel production. Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why these documents are relevant, or why their production would lead to admissible evidence.

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).)

Moving party did not request sanctions. No sanctions are granted, imposition of sanctions here would be unjust given the totality of the Court’s ruling.