Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV36165, Date: 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36165    Hearing Date: August 15, 2022    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Maria Carrillo’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One, from Defendant Kia America, Inc.  is GRANTED as to Requests No. 11, 17, 35, 36, and 46, and DENIED as to Requests No. 40 and 45. No sanctions are awarded.

I.                   MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER – PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

“A party may demand that any other party produce . . . a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010(b).) The demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).) “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand,” and “[t]he motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b).)

A motion to compel a further response to an inspection demand must set forth specific facts showing “good cause” justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1); Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 444.) Once the moving party demonstrates good cause for the discovery, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully respond to the inspection demand.  (Coy v Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220.)

Plaintiff Maria Carrillo moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production No. 11, 17, 35, 36, 40, 45, and 46, from Defendant Kia America, Inc. (Motion at p. 1; Separate Statement.) The requests are summarized as follows:

·         No. 11: all documents regarding Defendant’s pre-litigation repurchase analysis of the subject vehicle, to which Defendant stated it would produce all responsive documents, subject to a protective order;

·         No. 17: the workshop manual for the subject vehicle, to which Defendant supplied objections;

·         No. 35 and 36: vehicle component repair codes and customer complaint codes applicable to the subject vehicle, to which Defendant supplied objections;

·         No. 40 and 45: documents relating to Defendant’s practice of requiring a purchaser to execute a release document before offering repurchase or replacement of their vehicle, to which Defendant supplied objections;

·         No. 46: documents Plaintiff was required to sign as part of Defendant’s pre-litigation offer to repurchase the subject vehicle, to which Defendant offered compliance subject to a protective order.

It is first apparent that further responses are warranted for Reqeusts No. 11 and 46, to which Defendant responded with a thorough statement of compliance, but unilaterally conditioned upon entry of a protective order. But this discovery, applicable as it is to the subject vehicle in this case, is plainly relevant. And if Plaintiff refuses to agree to a protective order on Defendant’s terms, the solution is not a unilateral withholding of discovery, but for Defendant to make a motion for the protective order that it seeks. No such motion is on file with the court, and the motion is GRANTED as to Requests No. 11 and 46.

Defendant objects to Requests No. 17, 35 and 36 on the grounds that it is class-action style discovery regarding a single vehicle. (Opposition at pp. 4–5.) But the requests seek only a workshop manual applicable to the vehicle, plus Defendant's vehicle repair codes and customer complaint codes, which on their face do not seek documents related to other vehicles so much as documents related to Defendant’s internal policies and analysis. The motion is therefore GRANTED as to Requests No. 17, 35, and 36.

No good cause, however, has been shown for Requests No. 40 and 45, which seek documents related to Defendant’s asserted practice of requiring releases as a condition of repurchase or replacement offers. Specifically, Defendant’s counsel testifies, without contradiction, that Plaintiff was never offered or required to sign a release in this case. (Koopersmith Decl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff does not explain what bearing such documents may have upon this case.

The motion is therefore GRANTED as to Requests No. 11, 17, 35, 36, and 46, and DENIED as to Requests No. 40 and 45.

II.    SANCTIONS

Statute provides that the court shall impose sanctions upon a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for admission, absent substantial justification otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (d); 2031.310, subd. (h); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff asks for $2,125.00 in sanctions, representing a discount of eight hours of attorney work at $295 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. (Kreymer Decl. ¶¶ 11–13.) No sanctions are awarded, as Plaintiff’s motion has obtained only partial success.