Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 20TRCV00067, Date: 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 20TRCV00067    Hearing Date: October 11, 2022    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

 

 

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                                                      Tuesday, October 11, 2022 

Department B                                                                                                                                                Calendar No. 2

 


 

 

PROCEEDINGS

 

Alejandro Martinez, et al. v. FCA US, LLC, et al.

20TRCV00067

  1. Alejandro Martinez, et al.’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One    

     

    TENTATIVE RULING


                Alejandro Martinez, et al.’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is denied without prejudice.

     

                Background

     

                Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on January 17, 2020. Plaintiffs allege the following facts. Plaintiffs allege that their 2016 Chrysler 300, which was manufactured and distributed by Defendant, suffers from widespread defects, including transmission and engine defects, and that Defendant has been unable to repair their vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant knew that the vehicle suffered from the prevalent defects, but nevertheless refused to repurchase the vehicle—a willful violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act”). Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: 1. Violation of Subdivision (d) of Civ. Code Section 1793.2; 2. Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civ. Code 1793.2; (3) Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civ. Code Section 1793.2; 4. Breach of Express Written Warranty; 5. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability.

     

                Motion to Compel Compliance

     

                Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320 states, in relevant part:

                “(a) If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party's statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.

                (b) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

                (c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), if a party then fails to obey an order compelling inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

                (d)(1) Notwithstanding subdivisions (b) and (c), absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as the result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.”

     

                Plaintiff moves for an order to compel Defendant to comply with its own responses to Request for Production of Documents in which it stated it would “comply in full” with the disputed Request Nos. 16, 19, 21, and 42. With the Reply, Plaintiff has withdrawn the motion as to Request 42, essentially confirming that this portion of the motion is moot. Plaintiffs also request prospective monetary sanctions to be imposed against Defendant, in the amount of $500 for each day that Defendant does not make full and complete production of the Court-ordered documents after a ten-day compliance period.

     

                Request 16 states: “All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any internal analysis or investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding the POWERTRAIN DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

     

                Request 19 states: “All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to the POWERTRAIN DEFECT including but not limited to any databases in YOUR possession with information from dealers, service departments, parts departments, or warranty departments, and all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim or reported failure.”

     

                Request 21 states: “All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any fixes for the POWERTRAIN DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

     

                Defendant served responses in purported compliance with these requests. Defendant filed an opposition contending that it has responded in full, with a complete production as to these requests.  Plaintiff, however, argues that Defendant has withheld documents such as internal investigation and organizational charts.  First, it is unclear as to how organizational charts are at issue in Requests 16, 19, and 21 as these requests do not appear to seek “organizational charts.”  As to internal investigation documents, certainly, such documents would be contemplated by Request 16.  However, the instant Court is not in the position, at this time, to make a definitive determination that Defendant is concealing or withholding documents in contravention of its discovery obligations. Should Plaintiff develop evidence that Defendant has engaged in such misuse of the discovery process, the Discovery Act provides for the imposition of the most severe form of sanctions, including terminating sanctions for such conduct. Discovery responses are verified under the penalty of perjury.  A party may not conceal or withhold documents in contravention of their discovery obligations.  A court may impose terminating sanctions where the evidence reveals that a party has willfully concealed documents.  Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390-92.

     

                Therefore, the instant motion to compel compliance and request for sanctions is denied without prejudice.  The order is without prejudice as to any subsequent motion for sanctions should Plaintiff develop evidence to demonstrate that Defendant has actively concealed documents in contravention of its sworn statements under penalty of perjury that it has complied in full with its discover obligations.

     

                Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.