Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV01423, Date: 2024-04-19 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: 23CHCV01423    Hearing Date: April 26, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES NOS. 10, 46-48, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 2/20/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ludivina Tovar (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM” or “Defendant”)

NOTICE: OK 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court compelling AHM to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Special Interrogatories Nos. 10, 46-48, and imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,185.00 against AHM and its attorney of record.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED. The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act over alleged defects in her 2022 Honda HR-V (the “Subject Vehicle”), which was manufactured by Defendant AHM. Plaintiff alleges that she purchased the Vehicle in new condition on February 28, 2022, with AHM’s express manufacturer’s warranty.

On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendant AHM and Does 1–10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, and (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty. Subsequently, AHM filed its Answer to the Complaint on June 21, 2023.

On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Nos. 10, 46-48, Set One (the “Motion”). Subsequently, on April 15, 2024, AHM filed its Opposition. Plaintiff’s Reply was timely filed on April 19, 2024.

ANALYSIS

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

A.    Procedural Requirements

1.      45-Day Rule

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (c), notice of this motion must be given within 45 days following the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or by a later date agreed-upon in writing, failing which the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)

AHM served its responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, on December 5, 2023. (Tran Decl., ¶ 4.) This establishes the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion to compel further responses as January 19, 2024. However, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on February 20, 2024, failing to meet the deadline.

Nevertheless, given that AHM does not contest the issue of timeliness, the Court proceeds to review the Motion, operating under the assumption that both parties have stipulated an extension for filing.

2.      Meet and Confer

“A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).)

After receiving AHM’s responses on December 5, 2023, Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer letter on January 9, 2024. (Tran Decl., ¶ 5.) AHM responded on January 16, 2024, requesting a telephonic meet and confer. (Id., ¶ 6.) Subsequently, the parties telephonically met and conferred on January 19, 2024, discussing the issues raised in the instant Motion. (Id., ¶ 7.) However, the parties were not able to resolve all the disputes, including those related to Special Interrogatories, Nos. 46-48. (Ibid.) Additionally, AHM agreed to supplement its responses to Special Interrogatories, No. 10 by February 19, 2024; however, no responses have been received from Defendant by the time of the filing of the Motion. (Tran Decl., ¶¶ 7-8.)

Therefore, the Court determines that the meet and confer requirements have been satisfied.

3.      Separate Statement

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be accompanied by a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(3).) “A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

Plaintiff has met the above requirement by filing a separate statement explaining the interrogatories at issue, Defendant’s responses, and why further responses are necessary.

B.     Mootness

On April 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration, attesting that they had received AHM’s supplemental responses to Special Interrogatories, No. 10, on April 18, 2024, subsequent to the filing of the Motion. (Lupinek Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)

Based on this record, the Court deems the Motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, No. 10 as moot.

C.    Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Nos. 46-48

Plaintiff moves to compel AHM to provide supplemental responses to Special Interrogatories, Nos. 46-48.

No. 46 asks, “State the repairs per thousand vehicles sold (R/1000) for 2022 Honda HR-V vehicles.” (Tran Decl., Ex. “A,” at p. 8.)

No. 47 requests, “Identify in order the five symptoms with the highest repairs per thousand (R/1000) for 2022 Honda HR-V vehicles, and the corresponding repairs per thousand.” (Tran Decl., Ex. “A,” at p. 8.)

No. 48 seeks, “Identify in order the five components with the highest repairs per thousand (R/1000) for 2022 Honda HR-V vehicles, and the corresponding repairs per thousand. (Tran Decl., Ex. “A,” at p. 8.)

“As a general matter, the statutory scheme imposes no obligation on a party propounding interrogatories to establish good cause or prove up the merits of any underlying claims.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550.) Indeed, a litigant “is entitled to demand answers to its interrogatories, as a matter of right, and without a prior showing, unless the party on whom those interrogatories are served objects and shows cause why the questions are not within the purview of the code section.” (Id., at p. 541, citing West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 422.)

Accordingly, the Court will first examine whether AHM’s objections have satisfied its burden to show cause.

1.      AHM’s Objections

AHM objects on the basis of irrelevance, arguing that Special Interrogatories Nos. 46-48 seek information not connected to this lawsuit and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Def.’s Separate Statement, at p. 9.) Additionally, AHM raises objections on the grounds of overbreadth, vagueness, ambiguity, being unduly burdensome, and involving trade secret. (See generally, Def.’s Separate Statement.)

AHM contends that these requests are unintelligible, as the terms “repairs per thousand vehicles sold,” “symptoms,” “highest repairs,” and “repairs per thousand” are not defined or explained. (Opp’n., at p. 6.) Additionally, AHM maintains that these requests seek information about “completely different and unrelated symptoms and components.” (Ibid.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 permits a party to “obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter . . . if the matter is either itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Furthermore, established case law instructs,

“For discovery purposes, information should be regarded as ‘relevant’ to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct.  (1995) 33 CA4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (1996) 48 CA4th 1599, 1611 (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 CA4th 1006, 1013 (citing text).)

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 Plaintiff’s subject vehicle could conceivably be relevant to whether BMW acted reasonably in denying Plaintiff’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 Plaintiff’s specific case.”  (Underlines added.)

Here, Plaintiff’s request seeks “repairs per thousand vehicles sold for 2022 Honda HR-V vehicles.” (Special Interrogatories, No. 46.) Although Plaintiff’s request sets the scope to the same year and model of Plaintiff’s subject Vehicle, it does not limit the data to the same or same nature of reported defects by Plaintiff.

Similarly, Special Interrogatories Nos. 47-48 seek information about the top five symptoms/components with the highest repairs, and the corresponding repairs per thousand 2022 Honda HR-V vehicles. The Court finds these requests do not bear direct relevance to the specific defects alleged in this case. Furthermore, the Court determines that their sweeping scope is overly broad. While Plaintiff contends that the information could indicate “AHM’s knowledge of widespread problems, and AHM’s failure to act despite this knowledge” (Mot., at p. 4), the Court finds this argument unpersuasive. The relevance of a manufacturer’s knowledge and inaction should be directly connected to the defects as specifically alleged in the case, irrespective of whether the alleged defects are among the most frequent issues for the same model.

In alignment with established precedents, including those set in Dolen and Jensen, the Court concludes that information sought by Special Interrogatories, Nos. 46-48, is irrelevant and overbroad.

Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion.  

D.    Monetary Sanctions

As the Court has DENIED the Motion, the request for monetary sanction, reserved for a prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d), is also DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Nos. 10, and 46-48, Set One, is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is to give notice.