Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV01380, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV01380    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: F43

COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Juan Ibarra Villegas and Paloma Roman Ibarra

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant FCA US LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order compelling further responses to Plaintiffs’ special interrogatories and $2,280.00 in sanctions.

RULING

Parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiffs Juan Ibarra Villegas and Paloma Roman Ibarra (Plaintiffs) bought a 2017 Dodge Caravan from defendant FCA US, LLC.  The car began experiencing several mechanical defects, and Plaintiffs sued FCA for violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, alleging that FCA was unable to repair the defects and did not replace the car or make restitution. 

On June 14, 2024, Plaintiffs propounded 49 special interrogatories on FCA seeking information about repair rates for other 2017 Dodge Grand Caravans regarding the same issues plaguing Plaintiffs’ Dodge Grand Caravan.  Plaintiffs also served a good cause declaration.  Responses were due 30 days later. 

FCA served unverified responses on July 26, 2024.  Plaintiffs asked FCA to provide further verified responses by August 20, 2024. 

On September 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion to compel further responses to special interrogatory numbers 45, 46, 47, and 48.  FCA filed an opposition on November 22, 2024.  No reply has been filed as of December 3, 2024. 

Meet and Confer

A motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve issues outside court.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) 

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Armando Lopez, declares he sent FCA’s counsel a meet and confer letter on August 9, 2024 and specified the deficiencies in FCA’s unverified responses.  (Declaration of Armando Lopez, ¶ 5, Exh. C.)  Lopez asked FCA to provide further verified responses by August 20, 2024.  (Lopez Dec., ¶ 6, Exh. C, p. 9.)  Lopez also proposed setting the motion to compel deadline to September 16, 2024.  (Lopez Dec., ¶ 6, Exh. C, p. 1.)  FCA agreed to the September 16th deadline but later rescinded the agreement.  (Lopez Dec., ¶ 7, Exh. D, p. 1, 3.)  FCA did not directly address the meet and confer letter. 

Summary of Arguments

Plaintiffs move for the Court to order FCA to serve code-complaint verified responses to special interrogatories numbers 45, 46, 47, and 48.  Plaintiffs argue that FCA’s responses lack merit because they only object to relevance.  Plaintiffs’ interrogatories seek relevant information about the repair rates for 2017 Dodge Grand Caravans to determine whether the alleged defects and nonconformities are widespread and to refute FCA’s affirmative defense that Plaintiffs caused their vehicle’s issues through their own misuse.  (Motion to Compel Further, pp. 4: 28, 5:1-3.)  Plaintiffs also seek evidence of customer complaints related to warranty repairs for the 2017 Dodge Grand Caravan.  FCA’s handling of these complaints is relevant to determining whether FCA “willfully” violated the Song-Beverly Act. 

In opposition, FCA argues special interrogatories 36 through 58 are excessive and are unauthorized according to the Court’s Song-Beverly Litigation Discovery Order.  The information Plaintiffs seek is irrelevant to this case.  Plaintiffs have ignored this Court’s live meet and confer requirement and FCA’s ongoing willingness to cooperate and resolve discovery disputes.  Additionally, once FCA realized the statutory deadline to file a motion to compel further did not commence until it filed verifications for its initial responses, it rescinded its agreement to extend Plaintiffs’ deadline to file this motion on September 16, 2024.  FCA served a formal response to Plaintiffs’ meet and confer letter, verifications for its discovery responses, and supplemental productions of pages of relevant documents on September 17, 2024.  (Declaration of Michael D. Smith, Exh. 11, at p. 3.) 

Plaintiffs did not reply.

ANALYSIS

A demanding party may move to compel further responses to special interrogatories where the demanding party fails to respond or responds with objections or incomplete answers.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2030.300.)  The demanding party must serve the motion to compel further within 45 days after service of verified responses, unless the parties agree, in writing, to extend the time to file.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)  If the responding party serves unverified responses, the 45-day time limit does not run until verified responses are served.  (See Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 135-136.)

The Court has reviewed the documents related to his motion and will not decide the motion on the merits at this time.  The Court orders the parties to meet and confer directly, not by email or in writing.  Additionally, the parties are ordered to file a joint statement of remaining issues by a date to be set by the Court.  The joint statement should briefly describe the matters in dispute, followed by Plaintiffs’ arguments, then FCA’s arguments.

ORDER

1. The parties are ordered to review the Court’s Song-Beverly Litigation Discovery Order, the Court’s Information Bulletin, and the Court’s Final Status Conference Order.

2. The parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer in person or telephonically.

3. The parties shall submit a joint statement of the remaining issues as described above. The format should be as follows: the parties should recite the specific discovery request at issue, followed by the moving party’s statement of why it should be compelled, followed by the opposing party’s statement of why it should not be compelled.

4. The dates for the joint statement and continued hearings will be set at the hearing on this motion.

5. Moving party to give notice.

COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Juan Ibarra Villegas and Paloma Roman Ibarra

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant FCA US LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order compelling further responses to Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production and $2,320.00 in sanctions.

RULING

Parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiffs Juan Ibarra Villegas and Paloma Roman Ibarra (Plaintiffs) bought a 2017 Dodge Caravan from defendant FCA US, LLC.  The car began experiencing several mechanical defects, and Plaintiffs sued FCA for violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, alleging that FCA was unable to repair the defects and did not replace the care or make restitution. 

On June 14, 2024, Plaintiffs propounded their first set of requests for production on FCA seeking customer complaints and warranty repairs for other 2017 Dodge Grand Caravans regarding the same problems plaguing Plaintiffs’ Dodge Grand Caravan.  Production was due thirty days after service—July 14 or 15, 2024. 

On July 26, 2024, FCA served unverified responses.  (Lopez Dec., ¶ 4, Exh. B.)  Plaintiffs asked FCA to provide verified responses by August 20, 2024. 

Plaintiffs filed this motion to compel further responses to requests for production numbers 45 and 46 on September 16, 2024.  FCA filed an opposition on November 21, 2024.  Plaintiffs replied on November 26, 2024. 

Meet and Confer

A motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve issues outside court.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) 

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Armando Lopez, declares he attempted to meet and confer with FCA’s counsel.  (Declaration of Armando Lopez, ¶ 5.)  Lopez states he sent FCA a meet and confer letter on August 9, 2024 and specified the deficiencies in FCA’s responses.  (Lopez Dec., ¶ 5, Exh. C.)  Lopez asked FCA to provide responses by August 20, 2024.  (Lopez Dec., ¶ 6, Exh. D.)  Lopez proposed setting the motion to compel deadline to September 16, 2024.  (Lopez Dec., ¶ 6.)  FCA agreed to the extension but later rescinded the agreement and never responded to the meet and confer letter.  (Lopez Dec., ¶ 7.) 

Summary of Arguments

Plaintiffs move for the Court to order FCA to serve code-complaint verified responses to their requests for production numbers 45 and 46.  FCA’s objection-only responses lack merit because the information Plaintiffs seek is material and relevant to this case.  Plaintiffs seek documents evidencing customer complaints related to and warranty repairs for the 2017 Dodge Grand Caravan.  FCA’s handling of consumer complaint is relevant to determining whether FCA “willfully” violated the Song-Beverly Act. 

In opposition, FCA argues Plaintiffs have ignored this Court’s live meet and confer requirement and FCA’s ongoing willingness to cooperate and resolve discovery disputes.  Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate good cause or substantive justification for requests for production numbers 45 through 46.  The requests are vague, ambiguous, and go far beyond the scope of permissible discovery.  Additionally, once FCA realized the statutory deadline to file a motion to compel further did not commence until it filed verifications for its initial responses, it rescinded its agreement to extend Plaintiffs’ deadline to file this motion on September 16, 2024. 

In reply, Plaintiffs argue they attempted to satisfy the meet and confer requirement and that it is FCA’s unwillingness to discuss a reasonable compromise that has halted Plaintiffs’ efforts. 

ANALYSIS

A demanding party may move to compel further responses to requests for production where the demanding party is not satisfied with the responding party’s responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (a).)  The demanding party must serve the motion to compel further within 45 days after service of verified responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)  If the responding party serves unverified responses, the 45-day time limit does not run until verified responses are served.  (See Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 135-136.)  The parties may extend the deadline through a written stipulation.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) 

The Court has reviewed the documents related to his motion and will not decide the motion on the merits at this time.  The Court orders the parties to meet and confer directly, not by email or in writing.  Additionally, the parties are ordered to file a joint statement of remaining issues by a date to be set by the Court.  The joint statement should briefly describe the matters in dispute, followed by Plaintiffs’ arguments, then FCA’s arguments.

ORDER

1. The parties are ordered to review the Court’s Song-Beverly Litigation Discovery Order, the Court’s Information Bulletin, and the Court’s Final Status Conference Order.

2. The parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer in person or telephonically.

3. The parties shall submit a joint statement of the remaining issues as described above. The format should be as follows: the parties should recite the specific discovery request at issue, followed by the moving party’s statement of why it should be compelled, followed by the opposing party’s statement of why it should not be compelled.

4. The dates for the joint statement and continued hearings will be set at the hearing on this motion.

5. Moving party to give notice.