Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV02475, Date: 2025-02-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV02475    Hearing Date: February 5, 2025    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 02-05-25

Case # 24CHCV02475, Taylor-Williams v. Ford Motor Co., et al.

Trial Date: None set.

MOTION TO COMPEL REPSONSES TO DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Miriam Taylor-Williams

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Ford Motor Company

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order compelling Defendant Ford Motor Company to serve responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production of Documents, and Special Interrogatories, Set One.

RULING: The motions to compel code-complaint, objection free responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One are granted.  Motion to compel Defendant’s responses to Requests for Production of Documents is denied, without prejudice, pending Plaintiff filing a copy of the requests and a proof of service.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Miriam Taylor-Williams (Plaintiff) purchased a new 2020 Ford Escape, on June 8, 2020.  The vehicle began experiencing mechanical defects, Plaintiff sued defendants Ford Motor Company (Ford) and Galpin Ford for violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, alleging Ford was unable to repair the defects and did not replace the car or make restitution.  The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violations of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b), and section 1796.5.

On September 4, 2024, Plaintiff propounded on Ford her Form Interrogatories, Set One, (FROGS), Request for Production (RFPs), and Special Interrogatories, Set One (SROGs), and Form Interrogatories, Set One (FROGs).  Responses were due October 8, 2024.  On September 9, 2024, defense counsel stated Defendant would not provide responses until the Court ordered Defendant to comply with the Court’s Song-Beverly Discovery Order at the Case Management Conference on February 6, 2025.

Plaintiff filed motions to compel responses to RFPs, SROGs, and FROGs on November 25, 2024.  Defendant filed its FROG opposition on January 23, 2025 and its RFP and SROGs oppositions on January 24, 2025.  Plaintiff filed her FROG reply on January 29, 2025 and her RFP reply on January 31, 2025.

MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel interrogatory responses must include a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues mentioned in the motion before filing.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1), 2016.040.)

On September 9, 2024, Ford’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel a letter stating that in order to comply with the Department F43 Discovery Order Addendum, Ford would not serve any responses until after the Case Management Conference Order was entered.  (Declaration of Courtney Perdue, Esq., ¶ 9, Exh. C, at p. 1.)  Plaintiff’s counsel responded urging Ford to comply with Discovery Order and explained that Ford’s counsel’s interpretation of the Discover Order was incorrect.  (Perdue Dec., ¶ 10.)  Ford’s counsel replied demanding that Plaintiff stipulate to modify the Discovery Order in order for Ford to comply with its discovery obligations.  (Perdue Dec., ¶ 11.)

Plaintiff’s counsel sent Ford’s counsel a meet and confer letter on November 6, 2024 addressing the issues with Ford’s interpretation of the Court’s Discovery Order. (Perdue Dec., Exh D.)  The letter also asked Ford to produce all requested responses and documents without objection by November 20, 2024.  (Perdue Dec., Exh. D., at p. 2.)  On November 7, 2024, Defense counsel replied stating Defendant is willing to stipulate to agree with the Court’s Discovery order if Plaintiff would send a written agreement to stipulate to the same and that some of the documents produced would be subject to a protective order.  (Perdue Dec., Exh. E.)  On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel responded with the same arguments and asked Defendant to state when it would send objection-free, verified responses.  (Perdue Dec., Exh. F.)  No responses have been served.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff argues Ford’s flawed interpretation of the Court’s Song-Beverly Litigation Discovery Order is a completely ignores the order’s directive mandating discovery obligations. The Court did not intend for parties to wait 6-8 months from the commencement of a case to begin discovery.  Because Ford has not provided any responses or objections to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests, the Court should order Ford to serve objection-free, verified responses.

Ford opposes stating the Court’s addendum to the Discovery Order (“any formal discovery propounded and currently pending or outstanding by a party in these matters is stayed pending further order of the Court”) means that until the Court enters an order, Plaintiff’s previously served discovery is stayed until the Court orders the parties to provide certain documents within 45 days of the entry of the order.  Ford has agreed to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests according to the Discovery Order once the Case Management Conference has occurred.  Plaintiff fails to establish good cause for requiring Ford to provide discovery responses or production of documents for anything more than what is mentioned in the Discovery Order.  Plaintiff’s requests are broad and potentially implicate documents and information not protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine.  Plaintiff also failed to provide a separate statement as required by Rule of Court 3.1345.  Plaintiff has abused the discovery process and the Court should impose $800.00 in monetary sanctions.

In reply, Plaintiff argues that Ford purposely misinterprets the Court’s Discovery Order.  The order outlines the discovery permitted under the Civil Procedure Code, including requiring parties to exchange specific document production within 45 days of the order and allowing parties to exchange Form Interrogatories and 35 Special Interrogatories.  The order does not state that the portion of the order listing permitted discovery is stayed until a future Case Management Conference set for a date eight months after the case is filed.  Next, Plaintiff’s discovery requests are within the scope of the Discovery order, no separate statement is required for motions to compel initial responses, and Plaintiff waives any objection to the nature of any specific request or to refer to documents under Section 2030.230.  Finally, sanctions are not appropriate because Plaintiff has already complied with the Discovery Order by providing the listed documents to Defendant and has attempted to meet and confer with Defendant to receive the same.

ANALYSIS

Motions to Compel

A demanding party may move to compel responses to requests for production where the responding party fails to provide any responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.300, subd. (b), 2030.290, subd. (b).)  The demanding party must show the requests were properly served, that the time to respond expired, and no response has been served.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403-404.)  The responding party must respond separately to each demand by agreeing to comply, stating an inability to comply, or objecting to all or part of the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).)  The responding party must serve responses within 30 days after the requests for production are served or according to an agreed upon deadline extension.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a)(1)-(3).)

A propounding party may move to compel responses to form interrogatories and special interrogatories where the responding party fails to provide any responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  The propounding party must show the interrogatories were properly served, that the time to respond expired, and no response has been served.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)  The responding party must serve responses within 30 days after the interrogatories are served or according to an agreed upon deadline extension.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.270.)  Failing to respond within these time limits waives objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

            Department F43’s Song-Beverly Litigation Discovery Order

Trial courts have inherent authority powers to fairly and efficiently administer the judicial proceedings before it.  (People v. Engram (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1131, 1146; Code Civ. Proc., § 128.8.) This authority includes the power to enforce orders in the proceedings before it, to amend and control its processes and orders to make them conform to the law, and “to guard against inept procedures and unnecessary indulgences that tend to delay the conduct of its proceedings.”  (See California Crane School, Inc. v. National Comm’n for Certification of Crane Operators (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 12, 22; Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(2), (8).)

This Court’s Discovery Order is intended to make the discovery process more efficient by mandating specific discovery obligations for Lemon Law cases.  For example, the order requires the parties to produce certain documents regarding customer complaints and technical service bulletins.  (Song-Beverly Litigation Discovery Order, § 2, subds. (a)-(k).)  The order also clarifies that each party may propound one set of FROGs and one set of 35 SROGs, within the limits of the law and that any additional special interrogatories require a stipulation or court order based on a motion showing good cause.  Parties in Department F43 are required to comply with all sections in the Court’s Discovery Order. 

Plaintiff’s FROGs and SROGs comply with the Discovery Order, and Plaintiff properly served both on Ford on September 4, 2024.  Because Plaintiff’s motions do not include a copy of her RFPs, the Court will not rule Plaintiff’s motion to compel RFP responses at this time.  Ford did not serve responses by the original deadline or the subsequent deadline extension.  Ford’s interpretation and arguments regarding objections based on attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine lack merit.  Instead of delaying discovery responses, Ford should have promptly voiced its objections.

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Ford’s objection-free, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s FROGs and SROGs.  The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for her RFPs which are not attached to any of her motions.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant Ford Motor Company’s code-complaint, objection free responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One are granted. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s responses to Requests for Production of Documents is denied, without prejudice, pending Plaintiff filing a copy of the requests and a proof of service.

1.  Defendant Ford Motor Company is ordered to file and serve responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories within ten (10) days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff to give notice.