Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 22STCV21232, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21232    Hearing Date: September 15, 2023    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

Procedural Background

            On June 29, 2022, Plaintiffs Jose Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”) arising from the purchase of a 2019 Chevrolet Colorado (“Subject Vehicle”).  The Complaint asserts four causes of action for (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act -Breach of Implied Warranty, (3) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2, and (4) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act section 1793.22 – Tanner Consumer Protection Act.

            On December 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Request for Admissions, Set One (“RPAs”).  On February 24, 2022, Defendant filed an opposition.  No reply has been filed.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290:

(a) On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.

(b)(1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(CCP § 2033.290(a)-(b)(1).)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220:

(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) Each answer shall:

(1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.

(2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.

(3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.

(c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.

(CCP § 2033.220.)

Discussion

            Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s further response to RFAs No. 5 and 14.

Meet and Confer

A motion to compel further responses “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”  (CCP § 2033.290(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.”  (CCP § 2016.040.)  “The level of effort at informal resolution which satisfies the ‘reasonable and good faith attempt’ standard depends upon the circumstances. In a larger, more complex discovery context, a greater effort at informal resolution may be warranted. In a simpler, or more narrowly focused case, a more modest effort may suffice. The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant.”  (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

            On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant the RFAs at issue.  (Yashar Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 1.)  On November 15, 2022, Defendant provided its response.  (Yashar Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 2.)  On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer letter asserting that the responses to the RFAs at issue were insufficient and demanding a further response by November 29, 2022.  (Yasher Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. 3.)  Defendant did not respond to the meet and confer letter.  (Yasher Decl. ¶ 8.)

            A single meet and confer letter is insufficient to show a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution.  Plaintiff’s Counsel made no attempt to informally discuss the matter telephonically or in some other manner.  Moreover, though Defendant did not respond to the meet and confer letter, the letter did not invite such a response.  Rather, the meet and confer letter merely cited case law, stated that the response to the RFAs at issue were insufficient – without explanation – and demanded a further response.  Under these circumstances, Plaintiff failed to sufficiently meet and confer.  This failure to sufficiently meet and confer will be grounds for the Court to take the motion off calendar or to deny it outright.  However, for purposes of the instant motion only, the Court will in its discretion consider the request on the merits notwithstanding the insufficient meet and confer.

RFA Nos. 5, 14

            “The SUBJECT VEHICLE was a new motor vehicle for purposes of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act.”  (RFA No. 5.)

            “Plaintiff is defined as a qualifying CONSUMER as defined for purposes of the Song Beverly Warranty Act.”  (RFA No. 14.) 

            In an identical response, Defendant states that:

            “[Defendant] objects to this Request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Subject to and without waiving its objections, [Defendant] has made a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in this Request, but the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable [Defendant] to admit or deny this Request, as [Defendant] has not yet deposed Plaintiff. [Defendant], therefore, denies it on this basis. [Defendant]’s investigation and discovery are ongoing in this matter, and [Defendant] reserves the right to amend or supplement its responses during the course of this proceeding.”  (Response to RFAs No. 5, 14.)

            There is Nothing Further to Compel

            “Requests for admissions, …, are primarily aimed at setting at rest a triable issue so that it will not have to be tried. Thus, such requests, in a most definite manner, are aimed at expediting the trial. For this reason, the fact that the request is for the admission of a controversial matter, or one involving complex facts, or calls for an opinion, is of no moment. If the litigant is able to make the admission, the time for making it is during discovery procedures, and not at the trial.”  (Cembrook v. Superior Court In and For City and County of San Francisco (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429.)  Thus, “a party may request from the opposing party the truth of any facts or the genuineness of any documents that is relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.”  (Smith v. Circle P Ranch Co. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 267, 273.)  “[S]ince requests for admissions are not limited to matters within personal knowledge of the responding party, that party has a duty to make a reasonable investigation of the facts before answering items which do not fall within his personal knowledge.”  (Ibid.) 
            A party can respond to a request by admitting so much of the matter is true, (CCP § 2033.220(b)(1)), deny as so much of the matter requested is untrue, (CCP § 2033.220(b)(2)), or “[s]pecify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.”  (CCP § 2033.220(b)(3).)  “If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.”  (CCP § 2033.220(b)(2).)

            First, the objection that the request calls for a legal conclusion is immaterial because an RFA is meant to put matters to rest.  “[T]he fact that the request is for the admission of a controversial matter, or one involving complex facts, or calls for an opinion, is of no moment. If the litigant is able to make the admission, the time for making it is during discovery procedures, and not at the trial.”  (Cembrook, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p.429.)  Accordingly, Defendant’s objection on this basis is overruled.

However, Defendant’s substantive response is sufficient, and it clarifies that the response is not based on the objection.  In the substantive response, Defendant clearly denotes that it has made a reasonable inquiry but does not have sufficient information to admit the request because Plaintiff has the key information, and Defendant has not yet obtained such information at this time via deposition of Plaintiff.  Under the relevant statutes, this response is clear and sufficient.

            Under the relevant statute, a “‘[n]ew motor vehicle’ means a new motor vehicle that is bought or used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.”  (Civ. Code, § 1793.22(e)(2).)  Through information accessible to Defendant, Defendant could determine whether the Subject Vehicle was new when purchased because Plaintiff has provided the vehicle identification number in the complaint.  (Complaint ¶ 8.)  Notably, a response to an RFA is not limited to personal knowledge (Smith, supra, 87 Cal.App.3d at p.273) but includes information from sources available to Defendant – such as the relevant dealership.  However, the purpose and use of the Subject Vehicle is known only to Plaintiff.  Therefore, the response to RFA No. 5 identifying that Defendant cannot admit at this time and that Plaintiff has the needed information is proper.

            Similarly, whether Plaintiff is a qualifying Consumer for the Song-Beverly Warranty Act depends on whether Plaintiff purchased a consumer good.   “‘Consumer goods’ means any new product or part thereof that is used, bought, or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, except for clothing and consumables.”  (Civ. Code, § 1791(a).)  Again, Defendant could determine whether the Subject Vehicle was new when Plaintiff purchased it through sources available to Defendant.  However, whether the Subject Vehicle was used, bought, or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes would be known only to Plaintiff.  Therefore, the response to RFA No. 14 identifying that Defendant cannot admit at this time and that Plaintiff has the needed information is proper.

            Accordingly, the substantive responses are proper, and there is nothing further to compel.  The instant motion is DENIED.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Jose Sanchez’s motion to compel further responses to the Request for Admissions, Set One from Defendant General Motors, LLC is DENIED.

Moving Party is to provide notice and file proof of service of such.

DATED: September ___, 2023                                              ___________________________

                                                                                          Elaine Lu

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court