Judge David A. Rosen, Case 22GDCV00521 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 22GDCV00521, Date: 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCV00521 Hearing Date: April 7, 2023 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 04/07/2023 – 8:30am
Case No: 22GDCV00521
Trial Date: 09/11/2023
Case Name: MARIA MENERA RAMIREZ, an indiv; v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, DOES 1-10

3 -TENTATIVE RULINGS ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

MOTION 1

Moving Party: Defendant, Ford Motor Company
Responding Party: Plaintiff, Maria Menera Ramirez

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

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

Opposition Papers: Opposition; Pakbaz Declaration

Reply Papers: Reply; Cronin Declaration

RELIEF REQUESTED
Defendant, Ford Motor Company, moves for an order compelling further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, and 58 within 14 days of the Court’s order.

Defendant moves pursuant to CCP §2023.010, 2023.030, 2030.290, and 2030.300.

Defendant requests sanctions of $2,410.00 against Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, under CCP §2030.300(d).)

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 propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (CCP §2030.300(c).)

Here, the instant motion is timely.

Meet and Confer
“A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP §2030.300(b)(1).)

Here, Defendant’s counsel met and conferred. (Decl. Cronin ¶6-7.)

LEGAL STANDARD - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(CCP §2030.300(a).

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the¿burden is on the responding party¿to justify any objection or failure fully to answer.¿(Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also¿Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Furthermore, to the extent there is any doubt in whether these records should be discoverable, California’s liberal approach to discovery provides that doubt should be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.)

The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

(1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered.

(2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings.

(3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.

(CCP §2030.210(a).)

DISCUSSION
Opposition notes that Plaintiff provided further responses after the instant motion was filed. Opposition thus argues that this motion is moot. In Reply, Defendant argues that this motion is not moot, and Defendant attacks the merits of the supplemental responses. Here, the Court finds that the instant motion is moot because further responses were provided. If Defendant has issues with the supplemental responses, Defendant can file the appropriate motion. However, the issue of sanctions is not moot.

TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant’s motion to compel further response to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is DENIED as moot.

SANCTIONS
“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 a further response to interrogatories, 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 §2030.300(d).)

“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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).)

Here, the supplemental responses were not provided until after Defendant filed the instant motion. In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that it acted with substantial justification and imposition of sanctions would be unjust because there was a transition of handling attorneys from Aaron Cohen to Camran Pakbaz, and as a result, the new handling attorney was not aware of Defendant’s meet and confer. In Reply, Defendant notes how Kevin Jacobson of Quill & Arrow has been listed as Plaintiff’s attorney of record at every single stage of this litigation, and sanctions are therefore appropriate.

Here, the Court does not find that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification to make the imposition of a sanction unjust.

Sanctions were requested in the amount of $2,410.00. This is based on a billing rate of $250/hour, 5.4 hours preparing this motion, 4 hours to review Plaintiff’s opposition and prepare a reply, and the $60.00 filing fee.

This Court GRANTS Defendant’s sanctions request. The Court imposes reasonable discovery sanctions of $2,410.00 against Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, and payable within 30 days. This is based on 9.4 hours at a rate of $250/hour and the $60.00 filing fee.

MOTION 2

Moving Party: Defendant, Ford Motor Company
Responding Party: Plaintiff, Maria Menera Ramirez

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

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

Opposition Papers: Opposition; Pakbaz Declaration

Reply Papers: Reply; Cronin Declaration

RELIEF REQUESTED
Defendant, Ford Motor Company, moves the Court for an order compelling further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, and 9.1 within 14 days of the Court’s order.

This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Proc. §§ 2023.010, 2023.030, 2030.290, and 2030.300.

Defendant requests the Court impose sanctions of $2,310.00 against Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, under CCP §2030.300(d).

Here, the instant motion is timely.

Meet and Confer
“A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP §2030.300(b)(1).)

Here, Defendant’s counsel met and conferred. (Cronin Decl. ¶6-7.)

(4) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(5) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(6) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(CCP §2030.300(a).

The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

(1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered.

(2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings.

(3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.

(CCP §2030.210(a).)

TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant’s motion is to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is Denied as moot.

Here, the Court does not find that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification to make the imposition of a sanction unjust.

Sanctions were requested in the amount of $2,310.00. This is based on a billing rate of $250/hour, 5 hours preparing this motion, 4 hours to review Plaintiff’s opposition and prepare a reply, and the $60.00 filing fee.

This Court GRANTS Defendant’s sanctions request. The Court imposes reasonable discovery sanctions of $2,310.00 against Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. This is based on 9 hours at a rate of $250/hour and the $60.00 filing fee.

MOTION 3

Moving Party: Defendant, Ford Motor Company
Responding Party: Plaintiff, Maria Menera Ramirez

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

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

Opposition Papers: Opposition; Pakbaz Declaration

Reply Papers: Reply; Cronin Declaration

RELIEF REQUESTED
Defendant, Ford Motor Company, moves for an order compelling further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 33, and 34 within 14 days of the Court’s order.

This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Proc. §§ 2023.010, 2023.030, 2030.290, and 2030.300.

Ford also moves the Court to impose monetary sanctions of $2,335.00 against Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h).

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).)

Here, the instant motion was 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’s counsel met and conferred. (Decl. Cronin ¶7-8.)

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The Section specifically provides that “[d]iscovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery “may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

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.”

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.)

ANALYSIS

2, 19

Plaintiff argues in Opposition that this motion is moot because it provided supplemental responses to all of the requests at issue in this motion. However, as pointed out in the Reply, the only requests to which Plaintiff provided supplemental responses were to numbers 2 and 19. Therefore 2 and 19 are denied as moot; however, sanctions are not moot. Defendant can file the appropriate motion if it has issues with Plaintiff’s supplemental responses to RFP 2 and 19.

16 and 29

As to 16 and 29, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.

Further, Plaintiff did not provide code compliant responses.

Plaintiff is encouraged to read CCP §2031.210 – 2031.240 to better understand how to provide code compliant responses.

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set one, numbers 16 and 29 are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further, verified code compliant responses.

3, 5, 7, 11, 21, 22, 23, 28, 33, 34

Plaintiff argues in Opposition that this motion is moot because it provided supplemental responses, but Plaintiff did not provide supplemental responses to 3, 5, 7, 11, 21, 22, 23, 28, 33, and 34. Therefore, the instant requests are not moot.

However, as to all of these requests, Defendant states the reason to compel a further response is because:

A response to a request for production must be accompanied by the specific document(s) or material identified therein, unless subject to privilege. Plaintiff cannot be allowed to make specific identifications of responsive materials in her possession, then unilaterally decline to provide the same to Ford.

Plaintiff’s response states that Plaintiff will produce “Plaintiff’s videos depicting the nonconformities present in the subject vehicle.” No such videos have ever been produced.

(See Def. Sep. Stmt.)

Here, Defendant appears to have filed the wrong motion because Defendant appears to be seeking production compliance based on Plaintiff’s responses. Defendant does not appear to be seeking further responses based on the reasons it provided. Defendant needs to file the appropriate motion if it seeks to compel production compliance. “If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (CCP §2031.320(a).)

The instant requests are denied because Defendant does not appear to be seeking further responses, but appears to be seeking production compliance.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents, set one, numbers 2 and 19 are denied as moot.

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set one, numbers 16 and 29 are granted. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses that are verified and code compliant within 14 days of this Court’s order.

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set one, numbers 3, 5, 7, 11, 21, 22, 23, 28, 33, and 34 are denied because Defendant does not appear to be seeking further responses but instead appears to be seeking production compliance.

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, the Court does not find that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification to make the imposition of a sanction unjust.

Sanctions were requested in the amount of $2,335.00. This is based on a billing rate of $250/hour, 5.1 hours preparing this motion, 4 hours to review Plaintiff’s opposition and prepare a reply, and the $60.00 filing fee.

Since the Court found that 2 requests were moot based on Plaintiff not providing responses until after this motion was filed, denied some of the motion outright, and because the Court granted two of the requests, this Court GRANTS Defendant’s sanctions request in part. The Court imposes reasonable discovery sanctions of $400.00 against Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days.