Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV03608, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV03608    Hearing Date: April 10, 2025    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 04-11-25

Case # 24CHCV03608, Foster v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.

Trial Date: None set.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER REPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Zachary David Foster

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order compelling further response to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for admissions number 54.

RULING: The parties are ordered to meet and confer directly and to file a joint status report.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Zachary David Foster (Plaintiff) leased a 2023 Volkswagen ID4 on December 28, 2023.  The vehicle began experiencing mechanical defects, and Plaintiff sued defendants Volkswagen Group of American, Inc. (Defendant) and Winn/Patel Woodland Hills, Inc. d/b/a Winn Volkswagen Woodland Hills for violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, alleging that defendants were 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, failure to make available parts and literature, violations of Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200 and 17500, negligent misrepresentation, and negligent repair.

On November 8, 2024, Plaintiff propounded his first set of requests for admissions (RFAs) on Defendant.  (Declaration of Rene J. Dupart, ¶ 3, Exh. A.)  Defendant served responses on November 14, 2024.  (Dupart Dec., ¶ 4, Exh. B.)  Unsatisfied with Defendant’s responses, Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer letter on December 17, 2024 requesting supplemental responses by December 20, 2024.  (Dupart Dec., ¶ 5, Exh. C.)  Defendant did not provide further responses by December 20, 2024.  (Dupart Dec., ¶ 5.)

On February 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to her RFA number 54.  Plaintiff asserts that the RFA seeks relevant information about whether Defendant was aware of the alleged defects in vehicles of the same make, model, and year as Plaintiff’s vehicle.  This information is necessary to determine whether Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability.  Defendant’s boilerplate “vague and ambiguous” objection is not justified.

Defendant opposes claiming it has already provided the information currently available to it regarding this Song-Beverly case.  Defendant will not have more information until it deposes Plaintiff and conducts and inspection of Plaintiff’s vehicle.  Defendant’s objections are not boilerplate because RFA number 54 seeks information that is reasonably in dispute and cannot be resolved through an RFA.

No reply has been filed.

MEET AND CONFER

Before filing a motion to compel further responses to requests for admission, the parties must meet and confer to resolve the issues with the discovery responses.  The moving party must file a “meet and confer” declaration stating facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue in the motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.290, subd. (b)(1), 2016.040.)  In Department 43, “meet and confer” means in person or via phone, not by letter or email.  (Department F43 Courtroom Information, at p. 2.)  The supporting declarations indicate that the parties did not meet in person or telephonically.

ANALYSIS

Where responses to requests for admission have been served but the demanding party believes the responses are evasive or incomplete or an objection lacks merit, the demanding party may move for an order compelling a further response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, 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., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) 

The requests and responses at issue are as follows:

RFA No. 54: Admit YOU are aware of other customer complaints that are substantially similar to the alleged defects claimed by Plaintiff, in vehicles purchased/leased in California for the same year make and model of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.  A substantially similar customer complaint would be the same nature of reported system, malfunction, dashboard indicator light, or other manifestation of a repair problem as the description listed in any work order or repair order for the SUBJECT VEHICLE, other than routine or scheduled maintenance items.

Response: VWGoA objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad (“defects”), vague as to time, calls for speculation, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The court has reviewed the documents related to this motion and will not decide the motion on the merits at this time because the moving papers do not indicate the parties met and conferred.

The court orders the parties to review the court’s Song-Beverly Litigation Discovery Order, particularly Section 2, Category (h), and to meet and confer with the Order in mind.  The parties must meet and confer directly, not by email, to resolve as much as they can.  Further, 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 Plaintiff’s arguments, then Defendant’s arguments.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

1.  The parties are ordered to review the court’s Song-Beverly Litigation Discovery Order and to conduct a meaningful meet and confer with the Order in mind. The parties must meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference.

2.  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(s) 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. To the extent that an argument is repeated for a subsequent request, the party shall simply refer to the section where the argument was previously made.

3.  The court will set a deadline for the status report at the motion hearing.

Plaintiff Zachary David Foster to give notice.