Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV01039, Date: 2024-06-24 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 23CHCV01039    Hearing Date: June 24, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 4/8/23

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Arcelia Cisneros and Bertha Mariscal (collectively “Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant FCA USA LLC (“FCA”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling FCA to produce supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ first set of Requests for Production, Nos. 45-46, and imposing monetary sanctions against FCA in the amount of $2,620.00

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”) lawsuit over alleged defects in their 2022 Alfa Romeo, VIN: ZASPAKBN2N7D29028 (the “Subject Vehicle”), which was manufactured by Defendant FCA. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased the Subject Vehicle on December 21, 2021, entering into a warranty contract with FCA. (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 12, 15.)

On April 11, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendants FCA, Glendale Dodge, LLC (“Glendale Dodge”), and Does 1 – 10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) violation of SBA – breach of express warranty, (2) violation of SBA – breach of implied warranty, and (3) negligent repair. Subsequently, FCA and Glendale Dodge filed their respective Answers to the Complaint on May 18, 2023, and April 22, 2024, respectively.

On April 8, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses from FCA to their Requests for Production (“RFP”), Nos. 45-46, Set One (the “Motion”).

On June 11, 2024, FCA filed its Opposition. Subsequently, Plaintiffs replied on June 14, 2024.

ANALYSIS

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that … [a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[;] … [a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[; or] … [a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd., (a).)

A.    Procedural Requirements

1.      Timeliness

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production must be brought within 45 days of service of the verified response, supplemental verified response, or on a date to which the propounding and responding parties have agreed to in writing; otherwise, the propounding party waives the right to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c); but see Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 134-136 [suggesting that the 45-day deadline does not apply to (i.e., it does not begin to run with service of) objections-only responses; it only applies to responses that are required to be verified].)

“[T]he time within which to make a motion to compel production of documents is mandatory and jurisdictional just as it is for motions to compel further answers to interrogatories.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The 45-day deadline “is ‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Ibid.)

Here, FCA served unverified responses to Plaintiffs' first set of RFP on January 9, 2024, with FCA’s electronic verifications following on February 21, 2024. (Mot. at p. 5, Lopez Decl. ¶ 4.) The service of verification establishes the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion to compel further as April 10, 2024, calculated based on a 45-day period with an extension of two court days per Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (a)(3), accounting for the method of electronic service.

Therefore, the Court finds the Motion is filed timely as it was filed prior to the established deadline.

2.      Meet and Confer

“A motion [to compel further responses to requests for production] shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b)(1).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

Here, Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 5-7, Ex. “C.”)

3.      Separate Statement

The California Rules of Court rule 3.1345 (a)(3) explicitly states that “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[.]”

Here, Plaintiffs have fulfilled the requirement by concurrently filing a separate statement with the Motion.

B.     Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFP Nos. 45-46

1.      Moving Party’s Showing of Good Cause (RFP Nos. 45-46.)

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production shall “set forth specific facts showing good cause”. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd., (b)(1).) To establish “good cause,” the moving party must show (1) the items demanded are relevant to the subject matter and (2) specific facts justify the discovery of the requested items (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd., (b)(1); see Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

RFP No. 45 seeks, “All DOCUMENTS evidencing complaints by owners of the 2022 Alfa Romeo Stelvio Ti AWD vehicle regarding any of the complaints that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented to YOUR or YOUR authorized repair facilities for repair during the warranty period.”

RFP No. 46 requests, “All DOCUMENTS evidencing warranty repairs to 2022 Alfa Romeo Stelvio Ti AWD vehicles regarding any of the components that YOU or YOUR authorized repair facilities performed repairs on under warranty.”

Here, Plaintiffs argue that RFP Nos. 45-46 seek information relevant to determining whether a defect or nonconformity exists in these types of vehicles and when this defect or nonconformity first appeared. Additionally, Plaintiffs assert that records of complaints regarding other similar vehicles may refute FCA’s affirmative defense claiming that defects were caused by Plaintiffs engaging in unauthorized or unreasonable uses. (Mot. at p. 5.)

Moreover, Plaintiffs note that the information sought in RFP Nos. 45-46 regarding other similar vehicle complaints and warranty repairs is relevant in determining FCA’s knowledge about nonconformities and whether FCA willfully violated the statutory requirements. (Mot. at pp. 5-6.)

In Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154 (Donlen), the Third District held that the trial court had not erred in denying Ford’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of other customers’ complaints about the same transmission model Ford installed in plaintiff’s truck and other vehicles. (Underlines added.) Similarly, in Jensen v. BMW of North America, LLC (S.D.Cal. 2019) 328 F.R.D. 557, 562-63 (Jensen), the federal district court in San Diego found that, “information regarding whether the same defects were reported to BMW in other cars of the same make, model, and year as [p]laintiff’s subject vehicle could conceivably be relevant to whether BMW acted reasonably in denying [p]laintiff’s warranty claim. A fact finder may find BMW’s knowledge or lack of knowledge about the same defects to be a consideration in deciding whether BMW acted in good faith as to [p]laintiff’s specific case.” (Underlines added.)

Here, the Complaint alleges that the Subject Vehicle contained a defect, which FCA was unable to repair after a reasonable number of repair attempts. (Compl. ¶¶ 16-19.) Additionally, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs are entitled to a civil penalty under the statute for FCA’s willful failure to comply with its responsibilities. (Id. ¶ 26.)

Thus, the Court finds that the information sought in RFP Nos. 45-46 is relevant to the claims in the Complaint. The Court especially notes that the RFP Nos. 45-46 are limited to “any of the complaints that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented,” which is narrowly tailored to relevant issues.

Therefore, in alignment with established precedents, including those set in Donlen and Jensen, the Court concludes that good cause exists, and the information sought by RFP Nos. 45-46, is relevant and not overbroad.

2.      FCA’s Objections

Here, FCA asserted uniform objections in its initial responses, including vagueness, overbreadth, irrelevance, attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. (Tudzin Decl. Ex. “A.”)

The Court finds the vagueness, overbreadth, and irrelevance objections do not overcome the Court’s finding of relevance in the above analysis of good cause. The Court further notes that the objections on privilege and work product doctrine do not comply with the requirement under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (c)(1), which provides, “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.”

FCA further contends that the Motion is moot as it has served the supplemental responses to RFP Nos. 45-46 on June 7, 2024. (Opp’n. at p. 4, Tudzin Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. “A”), which states, “After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, FCA US will comply in full with this request and produce all responsive documents within its possession, custody or control. FCA US will conduct a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and produce, subject to protective order, all responsive documents found relating to customer concerns/complaints and warranty claim data based upon the alleged conditions outlined in Plaintiffs’ repair history, in other 2022 Alfa Romeo Stelvio Ti AWD vehicles.” (Tudzin Decl. Ex. “A.”) (Underlines added.)

In response, Plaintiffs argue that although FCA later served supplemental responses, these responses are not verified, justifying monetary sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of the 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).)

Considering the supplemental responses were made after the Motion was filed and no verification of the supplemental responses has been provided, the Court determines that the instant Motion is not moot.

Based on the above, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

C.    Monetary Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (d) provides, “The court shall impose a monetary sanction ... against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, 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.”

“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).)

As the Court has granted the Motion, it determines that the mandatory sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (d), are applicable. Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the instant Motion is $860.00, calculated at $400.00 per hour for 2 hours, in addition to $60.00 filing fee.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Nos. 45-46, Set One, is GRANTED.

FCA USA, LLC is ordered to provide verified responses or verification of its supplemental responses dated June 7, 2024, within 20 days.

Plaintiffs’ Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

FCA USA, LLC and its attorney of record are ordered to jointly and severally pay $860.00 to Plaintiffs.