Judge Gary I. Micon, Case Number: 23CHCV02095, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV02095, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV02095 Hearing Date: May 30, 2024 Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 5-30-24

Case #23CHCV02095, Juan Gonzalez Perez vs. FCA US LLC, et al.

Trial Date: 5-27-25

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY: Defendant FCA US LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Juan Gonzalez Perez

RELIEF REQUESTED

Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production, as well as sanctions.

RULING: Motion is denied as moot.

SUMMARY OF ACTION AND ANALYSIS

On July 18, 2023, Plaintiff Juan Gonzalez Perez (Plaintiff) filed this lemon law case against Defendant FCA US LLC (Defendant).

Defendant propounded discovery on Plaintiff on August 18, 2023. On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff served responses to Defendant’s requests for production. On October 18, 2023, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter regarding Plaintiff’s response to Request for Production No. 20. After some back and forth, on November 17, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that Plaintiff stood by his objections and would not be supplementing the request. Defendant filed this motion to compel further response on November 21, 2023.

The request and response at issue are the following:

Request for Production No. 20:

All DOCUMENTS reflecting any social media post made by YOU concerning the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

Plaintiff’s Response to Request for Production No. 20:

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, and compound. It is overly broad, and calls for a legal conclusion, expert witness testimony, and invades privacy rights, the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. It also seeks information contained in the business records, which are equally available to, or already within the possession of the propounding party; therefore this interrogatory is also burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff also objects to this request as it seeks the legal reasoning and theories of Plaintiff’s contention. Plaintiff is not required to prepare the defendant’s case. (Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 5.) Further, a party is not obligated to perform legal research for another party. (Ibid.) Plaintiff objects because this interrogatory is not full and complete in and of itself, contains sub-parts, and/or contains a conjunctive or disjunctive question and therefore does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060. Plaintiff objects to this request because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finally, Plaintiff objects on the grounds that the information sought by this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; as such, it can only be intended to embarrass or harass the Plaintiff.

Defendant argues that further response is necessary because this request only asks Plaintiff to produce documents reflecting any social media post by Plaintiff concerning the vehicle. Defendant argues that instead of providing a response, Plaintiff just gives a list of meritless objections. Defendant also requests sanctions in the amount of $1,750 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record for having to bring this motion.

Plaintiff argues in opposition that Defendant’s motion is now moot because Plaintiff served a supplemental response to Request for Production No. 20 on May 16, 2024, with Plaintiff’s opposition. Plaintiff also argues that sanctions are not warranted because Defendant failed to meaningfully meet and confer. The Court will note that Defendant filed this motion only after Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that Plaintiff would not be supplementing his response. It seems that further meet and confer would have been fruitless after such a declaration.

The following is Plaintiff’s supplemental response:

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to Request for Production No. 20:

Plaintiff maintains all prior objections, and supplements as follows: Plaintiff has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry for the documents reflected in this request but is unable to comply because the requested item(s) never existed. Discovery is still continuing and Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement or amend this response should additional information become available.

Plaintiff argues that this response is code-compliant. The Court agrees. Defendant has not filed any reply arguing that further response is necessary, so the Court finds that further supplementation is not needed. The motion to compel further responses is denied as moot.

On the issue of sanctions, it is a misuse of the discovery process to make unmeritorious objections and evasive responses and such misuse is sanctionable. (CCP § 2023.010.) Defendant has requested $1,750 in sanctions for bringing this motion. Because Plaintiff supplemented his response and Defendant has not filed a reply, the Court will only award $1,000 in sanctions for Defendant having to bring this motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses is denied as moot. However, sanctions will be awarded for Defendant having to bring this motion. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record are ordered to pay $1,000 to Defendant’s counsel within 30 days.

Moving party to give notice.