Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23GDCV01999, Date: 2024-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV01999    Hearing Date: December 13, 2024    Dept: A

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Davit and Noro Reganyan (Plaintiffs) bring this action against Ford Motor Company (Ford). Plaintiffs allege that Ford sold them a defective 2021 Ford Bronco Sport (Subject Vehicle) and thereafter refused to repurchase the vehicle in violation of the Song-Beverly Act.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the initial response of Ford to their Request for Production of Documents (RFPD) Set Two. Plaintiffs do not request sanctions in connection with the motion.  Ford opposes the motion, stating they have subsequently served code compliant responses to the discovery.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

Where there has been no timely response to a demand to produce documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (C.C.P. § 2031.300(b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (C.C.P. § 2031.300 (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. 

II.                 MERITS

Facts

On August 22, 2024, Plaintiffs served their RFPD Set Two on Ford’s counsel via email. (Sogoyan Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. 1.) Plaintiffs state they received no response to these RFPD within the statutory deadline of September 21, 2024. (Sogoyan Decl. ¶ 9.) At the time this motion was made, Plaintiffs remained without responses. (Sogoyan Decl. ¶ 12.)

Ford’s counsel represents that responses were not timely served because of an error in calendaring. (Brignoni Decl. ¶ 2.) Ford’s counsel states that when the email service came in, it was not put on calendar because she was sick. (Id.) Ford’s counsel states they served responses to RFPD Set Two on December 2, 2024. (Brignoni Decl. Exh. A at p. 97.) Ford thus argues that the instant motion is moot.

In reply, Plaintiffs’ counsel argues that they are still without sufficient responses. Plaintiffs’ counsel states that the December 2, 2024 responses are insufficient because they (1) are unverified, (2) primarily consist of objections which were waived by failure to timely respond, and (3) failed to produce all responsive documents pursuant to those objections. (Sogoyan Reply Decl. ¶ 14, Exh. 2.)

Discussion

Despite Ford’s December 2, 2024 responses, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ motion is not moot.

“In many cases involving untimely responses, the propounding party will take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions. If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however, the trial court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided…” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390. [emphasis added])

Here, Plaintiffs have shown that Ford’s responses were not valid by virtue of being unverified. “Unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Because Ford has not rendered verified responses, the impetus behind Plaintiffs’ motion remains cogent. Since Ford has failed to provide verified responses, which is a basic tenant for filing such responses, Ford is ordered produce verified responses without objection pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.300.  Ford provide to explanation for violation of the code and providing unverified responses.

Ford’s argument that it should be relieved from its waiver due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect of its counsel may have merit, but is not properly before the Court at this time. C.C.P. § 2031.300 is clear that relief from waiver in this instance may only be granted upon noticed motion. (C.C.P.§ 2031.300(a).) Had the oversight simply was a calendaring error that would be one thing, but the oversight was compounded by providing unverified responses.  Even had Ford properly moved for relief from waiver, it has not sufficiently shown that it is entitled to such relief. C.C.P.§ 2031.300(a)(1) requires the party seeking relief demonstrate that they have subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with the relevant code C.C.P. §§ 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280.

“Substantial compliance…means actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute. Where there is compliance as to all matters of substance technical deviations are not to be given the stature of noncompliance…When the plaintiff embarks on a course of substantial compliance, every reasonable objective of the statute at issue has been satisfied." (Malek v. Blue Cross of California (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 44, 72.)

Notably, C.C.P.§ 2031.300(a)(1) does not require Ford to demonstrate substantial compliance with the section requiring verification, C.C.P. § 2031.250. Regardless, as previously stated, Ford’s failure to verify has the general effect of negating the validity of their untimely responses such that a determination of substantial compliance cannot currently be reached.  

Lastly, the Court addresses Plaintiffs’ argument that Ford’s responses are not substantially code compliant because they contain objections which Ford waived. In the Court’s view, the presence of objections in untimely responses does not factor into substantial compliance. In fact, one of the code sections with which Ford must substantially comply, C.C.P. § 2031.240, specifically contemplates the assertion of objections. It would make little sense for the Legislature to include C.C.P. § 2031.240 in the requirement for substantial compliance if the assertion of objections in untimely responses were always improper.

In short, the Court finds Ford’s unverified responses are insufficient to moot Plaintiff’s motion. Ford has not moved for relief from its waiver of objections nor demonstrated it is entitled to that relief.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

Sanctions

The Court elects to not assess sanctions as Plaintiffs have not requested them in connection with this motion.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Davit and Noro Reganyans’ Motions to Compel Responses to Discovery came on regularly for hearing on December 13, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION SET TWO IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFFS TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: December 13, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. Tavelman, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles