Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 24CHCV03343, Date: 2025-06-05 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: 24CHCV03343    Hearing Date: June 5, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY RESPONSES (CODE CIV. PROC., 2031.320(a)); REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 2/13/25

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Mario Ruvalcaba Ortega and Beatriz Ruvalcaba Tabarez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc. to comply with its discovery responses and to produce documents pursuant to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and imposing monetary sanctions against American Honda Motor Co. Inc. and its attorneys of record in the amount of $1,460.00. Additionally, Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc. requests, in its Opposition, monetary sanctions of $1,000.00 against Plaintiffs.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs’ and Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc.’s respective requests for monetary sanctions are each DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Mario Ruvalcaba Ortega (“Ortega”) and Beatriz Ruvalcaba Tabarez (“Tabarez”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act lawsuit over alleged defects in their 2020 Honda Pilot, VIN: 5FNYF5H58LB002048 (the “Subject Vehicle”), which was manufactured by Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc. (“Defendant” or “AHM”). Plaintiffs alleged that they entered into a warranty contract with AHM regarding the Subject Vehicle on September 22, 2019. (Compl. ¶ 14.)

On September 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant AHM and Does 1 through 10, alleging a single cause of action for violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty. Subsequently, on October 23, 2024, AHM filed its Answer to the Complaint.

            On February 13, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel Compliance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.320, Subdivision (a) (the “Motion”). Subsequently, on May 22, 2025, AHM filed an Opposition, and on May 30, 2025, Plaintiffs submitted their Reply.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320, subdivision (a), provides that: “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.”

A.    Mootness

In the Opposition, AHM argues that it produced all non-confidential documents 5 days after serving its written responses, and the only outstanding documents require a Stipulated Protective Order (SPO), which AHM claims that Plaintiffs have not signed. (Opp’n. at p. 3; Orquiola Decl. ¶ 9.)

In their Reply, Plaintiffs do not dispute AHM’s assertion that production of non-confidential documents has been made but argue that its production and service of the SPO occurred only after the Motion was made, failing to comply with the production date that they were due. (Reply at p. 1; Supp. Nandivada Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs maintain that the issue of sanctions remains appropriate. (Reply at p. 1.) The Court agrees.

Here, AHM produced non-confidential documents on February 14, 2025, five business days after serving its supplemental responses agreeing to produce, rendering the request for an order compelling compliance moot. It is undisputed that AHM’s production of confidential documents remains contingent on Plaintiffs’ executing the SPO.

However, these circumstances do not dispose of the Motion’s sanctions requests. Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a), and case law, including London v. Dri-Honing Corp. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 999, 1004, courts may impose monetary sanctions where a misuse of discovery is established under Section 2023, even when “the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motion is moot as to an order compelling production of documents. The sole remaining issue before the Court is the parties’ requests for monetary sanctions, which the Court now addresses.

B.     Monetary Sanctions

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320, subdivision (c), “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 compliance with 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.”

Additionally, the court may impose monetary sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of a discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) “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).)

Plaintiffs argue that the monetary sanctions are warranted because the Motion was necessary to prompt AHM’s compliance, regardless of AHM’s production of non-confidential documents prior to the hearing. (Reply at p. 1.) This position may be supported by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a), which allows sanctions even where “the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

AHM, in Opposition, argues that there was no undue delay in its production of non-confidential documents, which occurred five days after it served written supplemental responses. (Opp’n. at p. 3.) AHM asserts that Plaintiffs’ Motion was unjustified and seeks monetary sanctions against them. (Id. at p. 4.)

The Court has reviewed the record and finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that monetary sanctions against AHM are warranted under the governing authority applicable to the Motion or based on any demonstrated misuse of discovery.

Here, on November 18, 2024, Plaintiffs served their Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFPs”). (Orquiola Decl. ¶ 4.) The RFPs demanded that AHM “specifically identify all the materials” and “produce all materials within the categories specified” “within thirty (30) days after service hereof.” (Nandivada Decl. Ex. “A,” at pp. 1-2.) This established a deadline of December 20, 2024, calculated based on a 30-day period plus two court days accounting for the electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).)

On December 20, 2024, AHM served timely, objection-only responses to the RFPs. AHM later served supplemental responses served on February 7, 2025. (Orquiola Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.) Because AHM’s initial responses contained only objections and no agreement to produce any documents, its obligation to produce was not triggered at that time.

AHM’s obligation to produce documents arose with its February 7, 2025, supplemental responses, in which it agreed to produce documents responsive to several requests. (Nandivada Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. “B.”) (Mot. at p. 1.) Notably, AHM stated in its responses, for example “AHM will produce its …” but did not specify any time frame for completing the production. (See, e.g., Nandivada Decl. Ex. “B,” at pp. 28, 29, 32, 35.)

On February 14, 2025, AHM produced over 206 non-confidential documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests. (Orquiola Decl. ¶ 8.) This production occurred five business days after the supplemental responses.

The Court finds this timeline reflects a reasonable period for production and does not indicate any undue delay by AHM. Plaintiffs’ “30 days” deadline stated in their RFPs applies to the initial responses period and does not govern the timing of production following AHM’s supplemental responses. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence of an agreement establishing a specific deadline for AHM’s compliance after it agreed to produce documents.

Accordingly, the Court finds that AHM’s production of non-confidential documents was neither untimely nor sufficiently egregious to warrant sanctions based on any demonstrated misuse of the discovery process under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030.

The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions.

With regard to AHM’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs, the Court also finds this unpersuasive. Although AHM’s production occurred within a reasonable period – five business days – following its agreement to produce documents, the production still followed the filing of Plaintiffs’ Motion. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that the Motion was unnecessary or that it constituted a misuse of discovery.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES AHM’s request for monetary sanctions. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs Mario Ruvalcaba Ortega and Beatriz Ruvalcaba Tabarez’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Discovery Responses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320, subdivision (a), is DENIED AS MOOT.

Plaintiffs Mario Ruvalcaba Ortega and Beatriz Ruvalcaba Tabarez’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc.’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.