Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 22GDCV00903, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22GDCV00903 Hearing Date: August 18, 2023 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 08/18/2023 – 10:00am
Case No: 22GDCV00903
Trial Date: 05/13/2024
Case Name: DEIVI CIFUENTES v. KIA AMERICA, INC., a California Corporations and
DOES 1-10
TENTATIVE
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Plaintiff,
Deivi Cifuentes, moves the Court for an order compelling further responses to
Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and monetary
sanctions in the amount of $2,125.00 against Defendant Kia America, Inc. and
its attorneys of record, Lehrman, Villegas, Chinery & Douglas, LLP. This motion is made on the grounds that
Defendant has refused to provide Code-compliant discovery responses pursuant to
CCP §2031.310.
[The
notice of motion does not indicate to which specific requests that Plaintiff
wishes to compel further responses. The Introduction section in the Memorandum states
that Defendant failed to provide Code-compliant responses to RFPs Nos. 16, 18-29,
33-43, 45, and 46.]
Procedural
Moving
Party: Plaintiff, Deivi Cifuentes
Responding Party: Defendant, Kia America, Inc.
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) : Uncertain – Moving documents were
served via email to eservice@lvcdlaw.com. The Court’s file notes that
Defendant’s counsel’s email address is jpratty@lvcdlaw.com. However, despite
these differences in email addresses, Defendant responded to the instant
motion. Therefore, Defendant appears to have received the instant motion.
Moving
Papers: Notice; Memorandum; Separate Statement; Kamosko Declaration; Proposed
Order
Opposition
Papers: Opposition
Reply
Papers: Reply
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff,
Deivi Cifuentes, filed a Complaint on 11/18/2022 alleging one cause of action
against Kia America, Inc. for Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express
Warranty.
The
instant action surrounds allegations pertaining to a 2021 Kia Seltos.
The Complaint alleges but one cause of
action. Further, the Complaint only refers to nonconformities. The Complaint
does not explain the exact problems/nonconformities/defects with the car. However, the intro to the motion
mentions engine defects.
MOVING
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff
argues that the discovery sought is relevant and that Plaintiff did not provide
code-compliant responses in accordance with 2031.210(a) and 2031.240(b)(1)-(2).
Plaintiff argues that Defendant refuses to indicate its level of compliance
with Plaintiff’s requests and lodges boilerplate objections, making it nearly
impossible for Plaintiff to determine whether Kia is inappropriately
withholding documents and, if so, on what basis.
Plaintiff
argues that RFPs 33-41 seeks documents related to Technical Service Bulletins,
service manuals, and internal codes generated or utilized by Defendant, and
similar consumer complaints and repurchases of other 2021 Kia Seltos with the
same or similar nonconformities.
Plaintiff
also argues Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, work-product
doctrine should be overruled. Plaintiff further argues Defendant’s overbroad,
unduly burdensome, and oppressive objections should be overruled.
OPPOSITION
ARGUMENTS
Opposition
argues that Plaintiff made no attempt whatsoever to address how the instant
RFPs were relevant, how there was good cause to the instant requests, nor did
Plaintiff attempt to set forth specific facts justifying the discovery being
sought.
Defendant
argues that Plaintiff cites recalls and technical service bulletins that deal
with vehicles completely unrelated to the subject vehicle in an attempt to
establish that there are known issues or defects with the Vehicle.
Defendant
argues that the RFPs are overly broad, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because
the requests would require Kia to search not only its own records, but those
that belong to third-party, independently owned dealerships.
Defendant
argues that Kia has already produced or agreed to produce the documents
relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence to prove Plaintiff’s prima facie case, including the Vehicle repair
history, sales contract, applicable Technical Service Bulletins and Recalls,
product brochure, owner’s manual, history of dealings with Plaintiff,
communications with any dealerships regarding the Vehicle, the warranty
covering Plaintiff’s Vehicle, and any documents used in the evaluation of
consumer repurchase requests.
Defendant
argues that the discovery at issue has no bearing on Plaintiff’s claim for a
civil penalty.
Defendant
argues that Plaintiff’s requests lack the specificity required by the code.
Defendant
also argues that privacy law protects the personal identifying information of
Kia’s customers.
REPLY
ARGUMENTS
Reply
argues that the instant requests are relevant, not overly broad, not unduly
burdensome, good cause has been met, civil penalties are relevant to the RFPs,
and the RFPs do not compromise customer privacy.
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. Defendant
provided responses on April 11, 2023, and the instant motion was served and
filed on 05/19/2023 which is within 45 days.
Meet and Confer
“The
motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section
2016.040.” (CCP §2031.310(b)(2).)
Here, Plaintiff met and conferred. (See Kamosko
Decl. ¶¶8-10.)
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
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that
Defendant did not comply with the Separate Statement requirement in its
Opposition. Defendant did not submit a separate statement. “Any motion
involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request
must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a
separate statement include a motion: (3) To compel further responses to a
demand for inspection of documents or tangible things[.]” (Cal. Rules of Court,
Rule 3.1345(a)(3).)
TENTATIVE RULING
All responses to the requests at issue in Plaintiff’s
motion contained only objections.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFPs
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 37, 45, and
46 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant
further responses, and to produce the applicable documents within 20 days to
RFPs 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 37, 45, and 46.
To the extent that the responses in 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 37, 45, and 46 asserted objections as to not
reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this
litigation, irrelevancy, immateriality, overly broad, vague, ambiguous,
oppressive, not limited in scope, requests lacking specificity, relevancy, failing
to comport with the proportionality requirements of CCP § 2031.060(f), not
properly limited in time and scope, the request not designating or specifically
describing each item or category, and objections related to Calcor Space
Facilty, Inc., those objections are overruled.
As to all other objections in 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 37, 45, and 46, Defendant did not properly assert
objections, and if Defendant is to stand behind its objections, the objections
need to be code compliant as explained in 2031.240.
Further, Defendant’s argument that it has already
produced or agreed to produce the documents relevant or reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is unavailing because
Defendant’s responses did not indicate as such.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFPs
16, 18, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43 is DENIED.
Plaintiff did not establish good cause for any of the requests
listed immediately hereinabove. 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.)
Defendant’s objections to RFP’s 16, 18, 33, and 34 are
Sustained.
As to RFP 35, objections sustained as to the phrase
“Field Service Action” being vague, unintelligible, and ambiguous. There is no
definition of Field Service Action in the Separate Statement.
As to RFP 36, objections sustained as to the phrase
“Special Service Message” being vague, unintelligible, and ambiguous. There is
no definition of this term in the Separate Statement.
As to RFP 38, objections sustained as to “symptom
codes” being vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. There is no definition of
this term in the Separate Statement.
As to RFP 39, objections sustained as to “component
repair codes” being vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible.
As to RFP 40, objections sustained as to overly broad.
Good cause was not demonstrated.
As to RFP 41, objections sustained as to overly broad.
Good cause was not demonstrated. Not limited to make, model, year, of subject
vehicle within CA.
As to RFP 42, objections sustained as to overly broad.
Good cause was not demonstrated. Not limited to make, model, year, of subject
vehicle within CA.
As to RFP 43, objections sustained as to overly broad.
Good cause was not demonstrated. Not limited to make, model, year, of subject
vehicle within CA.
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).)
Plaintiff requested sanctions in the amount of
$2,125.00 against Defendant and its attorneys of record, Lehrman, Villegas,
Chinery & Douglas LLP. Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not acted with
substantial justification in refusing to respond to Plaintiff’s requests.
Plaintiff also argues that no other circumstances make the imposition of
sanctions unjust.
Paragraphs 14-16 in Plaintiff’s declaration requests
sanctions as such:
a. I spent a total of three (3) hours drafting the
instant motion (including notice of motion, memorandum of points and
authorities, separate statement, this declaration, and proposed order) at my
normal billing rate of $295.00 per hour, for a total of $885.00.
b. It is reasonably anticipated that I will spend an
additional two (2) hours reviewing Defendant’s Opposition and drafting a reply
to Defendant’s Opposition at my normal billing rate of $295.00 per hour, for a
total of $590.00.
c. Finally, it is reasonably anticipated that I will
spend an additional two (2) hours preparing for and attending the scheduled
hearing on this matter at my normal billing rate of $295.00, for a total of
$590.00.
d. In all, legal fees will total $2,065.00.
15. Our office was forced to spend $60.00 in filing
the instant motion.
16. Adding up the figures above equals a total of $2,125.00.
These sanctions are sought against Defendant KIA AMERICA, INC. and its counsel
of record, Lehrman, Villegas, Chinery & Douglas, LLP.
Opposition argues that sanctions are not appropriate
because Kia provided responses to each of the requests and had produced or
agreed to produce every vehicle-specific document that has been requested.
Opposition argues it acted in good faith and believes that the overbroad and
irrelevant request are beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Opposition
argues it had substantial justification for opposing this motion due to the
wide sweeping nature of the requests.
Reply stands behind its sanctions request because it
argues Defendant served non-code compliant responses.
The
Court awards reasonable discovery sanctions to Plaintiff and against Defendant
and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of
$1,060.00. While some of Defendant’s
positions were substantially justified, some were not, and Plaintiff was
required to bring this substantially successful motion. The sanctions are payable within 30 days.