Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV17966, Date: 2023-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17966    Hearing Date: September 26, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Defendant”)

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.   

BACKGROUND

            This action arises out of the sale of an allegedly defective vehicle (the “Vehicle”) that was manufactured by Defendant.  The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d); (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b); (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3); and (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

On May 8, 2023, the Court issued an order compelling Defendant to produce further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (“RFP”), Set One.  On June 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel compliance with the Court’s May 8, 2023 order (the “Motion”).

DISCUSSION

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2031.310, subdivision (c), a motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (CCP § 2031.310, subd. (c).)  If a party fails to obey an order compelling further response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.  (CCP § 2031.310, subd. (i).) 

A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.  (CCP § 2031.220.)  If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.  (CCP § 2031.240, subd. (a).)  If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following: (1) identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made; and (2) set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.  (CCP § 2031.240, subd. (b).)  If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated.  (Id.)

            The Court’s May 8, 2023 order directed Defendant to produce further responses to RFPs regarding five categories of documents and to produce statements of compliance in accordance with CCP section 2031.220.  Defendant served unverified supplemental responses on May 26, 2023.  (Declaration of Alexus B. Ringstad (“Ringstad Decl.”) ¶ 4.)  On June 29, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant’s counsel regarding the sufficiency of the supplemental responses.  (Ringstadt Decl., Exhibit 3.)  Defendant sent verifications on June 30, 2023.  (Declaration of Adjoa M. Anim-Appiah (“Anim-Appiah Decl.”) ¶ 6, Exhibit D.) 

            The Court observes that Plaintiff’s meet and confer effort was negligible based on the proximity of the June 29, 2023 letter and the June 30, 2023 filing of the Motion.  Nonetheless, it appears that no further documents have been produced (although the Court is unable to determine if the lack of further production is because Defendant previously produced all relevant documents).  In addition, while Defendant’s statements of compliance incorporate the language of CCP section 2031.220, it is unclear whether Defendant has withheld any documents to which it objects.  (See CCP § 2031.240.)

            Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion in part.  Defendant is ordered to produce any unproduced supplemental documents and provide statements of compliance that specify if/what documents have been withheld pursuant to an objection within 20 days of the date of this order.  Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

     Dated this 26th day of September 2023