Judge Gary I. Micon, Case Number: 23CHCV00576, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV00576, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV00576 Hearing Date: March 27, 2024 Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 3-27-24

Case #23CHCV00576, Brenda Vela vs. FCA US LLC

Trial Date: 4-7-25

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Brenda Vela

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed

RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant’s further responses to certain special interrogatories, as well as sanctions

RULING: Motion to compel further responses is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

This action arises from Plaintiff Brenda Vela’s (Plaintiff) purchase of an allegedly defective 2021 Jeep Compass. On February 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant FCA US LLC (Defendant) and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of the Song-Beverly Act—breach of express warranty and (2) violation of the Song-Beverly Act—breach of implied warranty.

On April 3, 2023, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On October 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed and served this unopposed motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories and for monetary sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys of record, Ongaro P.C., in the amount of $2,535.00.

On March 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served a notice of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel.

As of March 22, 2024, Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed. Any opposition to the motion was

required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (CCP § 1005(b).)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not provide code-compliant responses to Special Interrogatories numbers 18-23, 25, 26, 29-31, and 43-48, pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.300(e) and 2023.030(g). Plaintiff argues that its interrogatories are relevant and that there is good cause to require Defendant to answer them. Plaintiff further argues that Defendant responded to the interrogatories with insufficient, boilerplate responses, and answered several of the interrogatories with the same response. Next, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s reliance on the option to produce writings was waived because it failed to serve timely verified responses. Finally, Plaintiff argues that its interrogatories were relevant, so Defendant should not have objected on relevancy grounds.

The Discovery Act allows “[a]ny party [to] obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.” (CCP § 2030.010(a).) “An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based.” (CCP § 2031.030(b).) The responding party must then respond separately to each interrogatory with either an answer containing the information sought to be discovered, an exercise of the party’s option to produce writings, or an objection. (CCP § 2030.210.) If the demanding party deems that “(1) [a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) [a]n exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; [or] (3) [a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general,” the demanding party may seek an order compelling Code-complaint responses. (CCP § 2030.300(a)(1)-(3).)

Plaintiff argues in her motion that the motion is proper because it was timely filed and she engaged in sufficient meet and confer by sending the letter that Defendant did not respond to. Plaintiff also argues that there is good cause to seek further responses to special interrogatories because the information sought in the special interrogatories is material and relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.

Next, a party is required to provide responses to interrogatories that are “as complete and

straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (CCP § 2030.220(a).) “If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (CCP § 2030.220(b).)

In response to interrogatory numbers 18, 23, 26, 43, and 44, Defendant states “In California and pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, FCA US would offer to repurchase or replace a new motor vehicle if it contained a non-conformity covered by the applicable limited express warranty that substantially impaired its use, value or safety that was not repaired after a reasonable number of attempts to do so.” Plaintiff argues that this is boilerplate text and is not at all responsive to the questions being asked. Plaintiff argues that this is not in accord with CCP § 2030.220(a) and (b) because it is not complete and straightforward and does not answer to the extent possible. Plaintiff also argues that this statement is conclusory and does not answer the question.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s argument. Defendant cannot simply restate the same answer over and over by copying and pasting its answer to prior interrogatories. Defendant must answer each interrogatory individually to the best of its ability.

Defendant also relies on the option to produce writings under section 2030.230. Plaintiff argues that Defendant has waived that right because it failed to timely serve verified responses. (CCP § 2030.290(a); see Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [“Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”]; see also Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.) Plaintiff argues that this means that further responses are warranted. Defendant answered in this manner for interrogatory numbers 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, and 26.

If Defendant wishes to answer in this manner, Defendant must submit verified responses. It is also worth noting that several of the listed responses simply use boilerplate, conclusory language that is the same as the other responses. Once again, Defendant must respond to the interrogatories individually.

For the remaining interrogatories, Defendant objected to them on the basis that they are not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead discoverable information. Defendant used this argument for Interrogatory Numbers 29-31 and 45-47. For Interrogatory Number 48, it appears that Defendant did not answer the interrogatory at all. While some of these interrogatories may have been objectionable for being overly broad, Defendant did not verify its answers, and most of the interrogatories are relevant to the case. Defendant must also state why the particular answers are objectionable, rather than simply copying and pasting the same objection to every interrogatory.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant must submit verified, code-compliant responses to Special Interrogatories numbers 18-23, 25, 26, 29-31, and 43-48. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is granted.

Sanctions

CCP § 2023.030 authorizes the Court to issue sanctions against a party engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. Failure to respond to discovery, evasive responses, and objections lacking substantial justification are “misuses of the discovery process.” (CCP § 2023.010(d)-(f); CCP § 2031.310(h).)

Plaintiff has requested sanctions in the total amount of $2,535.00 against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record. The amount was based on $975.00 in attorney fees (at $375.00 an hour for 2.6 hours), $60.00 in costs, an expected $750.00 for reviewing the opposition and preparing a reply, and an expected $750.00 for attending the hearing. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 8.) Because no opposition and no reply were filed, the Court will only impose an additional $750.00 for attorney fees for the hearing on this matter. That makes the total amount of sanctions $1,785.00.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record is granted in the total amount of $1,785.00.

ORDER

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is granted.

2. Defendant is ordered to serve supplemental responses within thirty (30) days.

3. Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record are ordered to pay sanctions in the total amount of $1,785.00. Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record are ordered to pay these sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days.