Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: "Mendez v. FCA US, LLC", Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

Plaintiff Juan Mendoza Mendez moves to strike Defendant FCA US LLC’s objections and to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One Nos. 1, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 32, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

It is undisputed that FCA served Further Supplemental Responses to Request for Production Nos. 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 32, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, and 69. (Smith Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A.)  Sometimes parties will cite Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, as Plaintiff did here, in support of the proposition that FCA’s responses do not divest the Court of the authority to compel responses and the Court has the discretion to rule on the motion or not. (Id. at 405, 409.) The Sinaiko court stated: “The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section 2030.300 and either determine that further answers are required, or order the propounding party to “meet and confer” (§ 2030.300, subd. (b)) and file a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1020(a)(2), (c)); or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion under section 2030.300.” (Id. at 409.) Sinaiko, however, involved a straight motion to compel responses to interrogatories, rather than a motion to compel further responses such as the motion at issue here. Motions to compel further responses to discovery requests require a meet and confer.

Accordingly, the motion is denied as moot to the extent that it requests an order compelling FCA to provide further responses to Request for Production Nos. 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 32, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, and 69. If it has not done so, FCA shall produce all responsive, non-privileged documents in accordance with its Further Supplemental Responses within 15 days of service of notice of ruling.

The motion is denied as to Request for Production Nos. 1, 8, and 60. FCA has stated that it will comply fully with these requests. To the extent that Plaintiff feels FCA’s ESI search was insufficient, the parties are ordered to meet and confer to discuss how the search was conducted, the search terms used, and the databases and custodians searched. The parties are reminded “[c]ivil discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention.  [I]t is a central precept of the Civil Discovery Act ... that discovery be essentially self-executing[.]  [Citations].” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402.)

The motion is granted as to Request for Production No. 11, subject to the following modification: FCA shall produce a list of all TSBs, recalls, and Customer Satisfaction Notifications concerning the defects identified in the Subject Vehicle’s repair history that were issued for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle. Plaintiff may then identify the documents for which he would like copies.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Defendant FCA US LLC shall give notice.