[1] Only Exhibit 1 is attached to the Rafter Declaration.

[2] The 2024 Thanksgiving holiday was on November 28, 2024.

Dept. F43

Date: 04-08-25

Case # 24CHCV02122, Romero, et al. v. FCA US, LLC

Trial Date: 02-01-27

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

 

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Ray Romero and Sharon Romero

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant FCA US, LLC

 

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order compelling defendant’s code-compliant responses to plaintiffs’ requests for production 45-46 and awarding $2,320.00 in monetary sanctions.

 

RULING: Motion is granted, as limited by the court’s discovery order and the parties’ protective order, and $2,320.00 in monetary sanctions is awarded.

 

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiffs Ray Romero and Sharon Romero (Plaintiffs) filed this lemon law case against defendant FCA US, LLC (Defendant) claiming Defendant breached an express warranty.  Plaintiffs allege that they entered into a warranty contract with Defendant for a 2019 Dodge RAM 1500 on February 1, 2019.  There were defects in the vehicle, the defects make the vehicle unsafe, and Defendant failed to repair or replace the vehicle.

 

On August 13, 2024, Plaintiffs propounded their first set of requests for production (RFP) on Defendant.  (Declaration Armando Lopez, ¶ 3, Exh. A.)  Defendant served untimely and unverified responses on October 15, 2024.  (Lopez Dec., ¶ 5, Exh. C.)  Plaintiffs asked Defendant to produce documents by December 2, 2024, but Defendant did not respond.  (Lopez Dec., Exh. D.)

 

On December 18, 2024, Plaintiffs moved for further responses to RFP numbers 45 and 46 and for $2,320.00 in sanctions.  Plaintiffs argue that the information they seek—similar complaints and warranty repairs—is relevant to proving whether the alleged defects existed in Plaintiffs’ vehicle before Plaintiffs’ purchase.  The requested documents will lead to evidence concerning Defendant’s handling of consumer complaints and whether Defendant willfully violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  The court should strike Defendant’s “vague, ambiguous, and overly broad” objections because the RFPs are narrowly tailored to a specific subject matter—warranty repairs and customer complaints for the alleged defect in vehicles of the same make, model, and year as Plaintiffs’ vehicle.  The court should impose $2,320.00 in monetary sanctions for Plaintiffs having to bring this motion.

 

Defendant opposes arguing that it has provided Plaintiffs with verified supplemental responses to RFP numbers 45 and 46.  Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ motion and supporting declaration are devoid of accurate factual evidence necessary to show good cause or other justification for the requested discovery.  Defendant has already agreed to produce responsive documents and has already done so.  The court should deny Plaintiffs’ sanctions request because Plaintiffs have no reasonable grounds for bringing this motion, and Defendant has substantively complied with producing responsive documents and its valid objections.

 

MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production 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).)  In Department F43, meet and confer means in person or via phone.  A letter or email does not suffice.  (Department F43 Courtroom Information, p. 2.)

 

The evidence does not reflect that the parties met and conferred according to the court’s Lemon Law Discovery Order.  Plaintiffs claim that after Defendant failed to serve its initial responses by the original deadline, Plaintiffs emailed Defendant requesting responses and informing Defendant it had waived objections.  (Lopez Dec., ¶ 4, Exh. B.)  Defendant served unverified responses on October 15, 2024.  (Lopez Dec., ¶ 5.)  On November 25, 2024, Plaintiffs sent Defendant a meet and confer letter specifying issues with Defendant’s responses and requesting supplemental responses by December 11, 2025.  (Lopez Dec., ¶ 6, Exh. D.)  Plaintiffs claim that Defendant never engaged in a meet and confer or provided further responses.

 

Defendant claims it served verifications on January 14, 2025.  (Declaration of John R. Rafter, ¶ 4, Exh. 2, p. 1.)  Defendant’s counsel missed the meet and confer email because of the Thanksgiving Holiday.[1]  (Rafter Dec., ¶¶ 5-6.)

 

ANALYSIS

Where responses to requests for production of documents have been served but the demanding party believes that they are deficient because the statement of compliance is incomplete, the representation of an inability to comply is inadequate, evasive, or incomplete, or, because an objection is without merit, that party may move for an order compelling a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)  The demanding party must serve the motion within 45 days after service of verified responses in question, or any verified supplemental responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) 

 

The court finds that RFP numbers 45 and 46 fall within Section 2, Category (h) of the court’s Lemon Law Discovery Order.  Defendant served verified supplemental responses to RFP number 45 and 46 on March 25, 2025.  (Rafter Dec., ¶ 8, Exh. 3.)  Defendant’s supplemental responses are code-compliant, but the court’s Lemon Law Discovery Order required the parties to provide the requested documents within forty-five (45) days of the order’s date.

 

Therefore, the court grants Plaintiffs’ requests only to the extent of Category (h) [2] and as limited by the protective order filed on January 22, 2025.

 

            Sanctions

Plaintiffs request $2,320.00 in monetary sanctions.  (Lopez Dec., ¶ 11.)

 

The court must impose monetary sanctions against a party or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to inspection demands, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

 

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Armando Lopez, charges an hourly rate of $400.00 and the associate who worked on Plaintiffs’ motion charges $200.00 per hour.  (Lopez Dec., ¶ 9(a)-(b).)  The request includes the following: (1) 2.3 hours for the associate to draft the motion—$460.00; (2) 0.5 hours for attorney Lopez to revise and finalize the motion—$200.00; (3) 2.0 hours estimated for attorney Lopez to review the opposition and draft a reply—$800.00; (4) 2.0 hours estimated for attorney Lopez to prepare for and attend the motion hearing—$800.00; and (5) a $60.00 filing fee.  (Lopez Dec., ¶¶ 9(a)-(d), 10.)

 

Defendant opposes stating that Plaintiffs’ original meet and confer efforts were insufficient, Plaintiffs lack good cause for filing this motion, and Defendant provided supplemental responses.  However, Defendant served supplemental responses after Plaintiffs filed this motion, and Defendant has not provided substantial justification for not serving the supplemental responses by the December 11, 2024 deadline extension.  Counsel states that the meet and confer letter was sent over the Thanksgiving holiday, but the moving papers indicate that the letter was sent three (3) days before Thanksgiving and gave Defendant sixteen (16) days to provide verifications and supplemental responses.  Defendant did not respond by the December 11th deadline or before Plaintiffs filed their motion one week later on December 18th.  Therefore, the court awards sanctions.

 

The court finds the hourly rates and time spent on the motion reasonable.

 

Accordingly, the court grants Plaintiffs’ sanctions request in the amount of $2,320.00: (1) 2.3 hours by associate attorney drafting this motion—$460.00; (2) 0.5 hours by attorney Lopez to revise and finalize the motion—$200.00; (3) 2.0 hours for attorney Lopez to review the opposition and draft a reply—$800.00; (4) 2.0 hours estimated for attorney Lopez to prepare for and attend the motion hearing—$800.00; and (5) a $60.00 filing fee.

 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to requests for production numbers 45 and 46 is granted as limited by the court’s Lemon Law Discovery Order and the parties’ protective order.  The court also awards Plaintiffs $2,320.00 in monetary sanctions.

 

1.  Defendant FCA US, LLC is ordered to serve responsive documents within 45 days of the date of this order.

 

2.  Defendant FCA US, LLC and its attorney of record are ordered to pay Plaintiffs $2,320.00 in monetary sanctions.

 

3.  Defendant’s counsel is ordered to pay Plaintiffs’ attorney within twenty (20) days of the date of this order.

 

Plaintiffs to give notice.