Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24NNCV04372, Date: 2025-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV04372    Hearing Date: April 18, 2025    Dept: A

MOTION 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 required 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: 

Jose Avila Ortiz (Plaintiff) brings this action against FCA US, LLC (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sold him a defective 2022 RAM 2500 (Subject Vehicle) and thereafter refused to repurchase the vehicle in violation of the Song-Beverly Act.

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s four discovery motions to compel FCA to respond to Plaintiff’s (1) Form Interrogatories, (2) Special Interrogatories, (3) Request for Production of Documents (RFPD), and (4) Request for Admissions (RFA). FCA opposes each motion, arguing they are moot by virtue of FCA having subsequently served responses to the demands. Plaintiff replies, arguing that FCA’s responses contain objections which are improper because FCA has waived objections in failing to respond timely. 

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

When a party fails respond timely to interrogatories the propounding party may move for an order compelling response and for a monetary sanction.  (C.C.P. § 2030.290(b).)  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel when no responses have been served.  All that is required is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.) 

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. 

If a party fails to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner, the requesting party may move for an order that the matters be deemed admitted. (C.C.P. § 2033.280(b).) The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court unless the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with C.C.P. § 2033.220 prior to the hearing.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(c).)  By failing to respond timely, the party to whom the requests are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or work product.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(a).) 

II.                 MERITS

Facts

On November 6, 2024, Plaintiff served FCA with his Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, RFPD, and RFA. (Meagle Decl. ¶ 3, Exhs. A-b.) On December 4, 2024, FCA’s counsel requested an extension of the time to reply to December 18, 2024. (Meagle Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff states that, as of the filing of the motions on January 15, 2025, no responses had been received from FCA. One day later, on January 16, 2025 Plaintiff filed motions to compel.

On January 17, 2025, FCA served untimely responses to each of the outstanding discovery demands. (Tudzin Decl. ¶ 10, Exh. A.) On February 25, 2025, FCA served verifications for these responses. (Tudzin Decl. ¶11, Exh. B.)

Discussion

FCA argues that their subsequent service of discovery responses renders the instant motions moot. Plaintiff argues in reply that the motion should be granted in full because the responses by FCA contain objections. Plaintiff reasons that FCA waived its objections by failing to respond timely and thus must seek relief from the Court for such waiver. As will be explained below, the Court finds the instant motions have been mooted, though Plaintiff’s arguments as to waiver may be validly considered in any future motion to compel further responses.

“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 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.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390.)

In this instance the Court finds the most efficacious course of action is to deny Plaintiff’s motions as moot and issue a ruling on the matter of sanctions. While the responses are attached to FCA’s opposition, Plaintiff’s reply does not designate which of the responses contain improper objections and which are acceptable. Such questions are more easily resolved upon a motion to compel further responses, wherein the moving party specifically briefs the requests to which further answers are sought. If Plaintiff wishes to compel responses free of objections, their recourse to do so is by filing a motion to compel further responses. Similarly, should FCA wish to be relieved of their waiver of objections, they are required to file a motion seeking such relief.

Sanctions

The Court has discretion to impose a monetary sanction against a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct. (C.C.P. § 2023.030(a).) Sanctions are only mandatory as against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories or RFPD, unless the Court finds they acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (C.C.P. §§ 2030.290(c) & 2031.300(c).)

Here, the Court declines imposition  of sanctions. First, the Court must acknowledge the reality of Song-Beverly cases in which the volume of this litigation has increased significantly.  While counsel is to be commended with the initial cooperation in seeking and granting a continuance, the filing of the motions to compel one day after the documents were due was not indicative of continued cooperation.   The Court acknowledges that FCA should have requested a subsequent continuance of the compliance date if they did not believe it could be accomplished by the agreed upon date; however, likewise, Plaintiff’s counsel should have contacted FCA’s counsel before incurring the time and expense of drafting multiple motions to compel.  Given that an initial response was provided one day after the motions to compel were filed, it appears that the filing of the motions may not have been necessary to obtain the responses. 

Accordingly, the Court denies sanctions.

--- 

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 

Jose Avila Ortiz’s Motions to Compel Discovery Responses came on regularly for hearing on April 18, 2025, 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 MOTIONS TO COMPEL FCA US, LLC’S INITIAL RESPONSES TO PLAINITFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS IS MOOT.

SANCTIONS ARE DENIED.

PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.