Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV25855, Date: 2024-06-21 Tentative Ruling

This case arises from a complaint filed by Plaintiff Edwin Enrique Hercules Jr (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) on October 23, 2023. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act relating to a 2023 Jeep Grand Cherokee leased by Plaintiff and manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant.

Under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2030.290, subdivision (b), when a party directs interrogatories towards a party, and that party fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) The moving party need only show that the interrogatories were served on the opposing party, the time has expired to respond to the interrogatories and no responses have been served in order for the court to compel the opposing party to respond. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906.) “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.” (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

Here, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories (“SIs”) upon Defendant on December 15, 2023. (Declaration of Nadine Bedwan in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to SIs (“Bedwan SIs Decl.”), ¶ 3.) Defendant did not serve responses to the SIs as of the date of filing of this motion on March 26, 2024. (Bedwan SIs Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling Defendant to serve responses to the SIs.

The Court notes that Defendant filed a late opposition to the motion on the SIs just two court days before the hearing and listing the wrong department. In its late opposition, Defendant claims that it has served responses to the SIs, and that the lateness of the response was caused by counsel’s inadvertence and excusable neglect. Counsel should understand that relief from an attorney’s inadvertence and excusable neglect must be the subject of a separate motion and that failure to serve timely responses waives all objections. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the SIs is GRANTED, to the extent that all objections contained in the untimely responses to the SIs are stricken. If the responses are not otherwise complete or Code-compliant, Plaintiff has forty-five days from the date of the hearing to file a Motion to Compel Further.

Since no request for sanctions was made in the motion, no sanctions are imposed.

The Court considered the moving papers and opposition filed in connection with this motion.

As noted above, when a party directs interrogatories towards a party, and that party fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) The moving party need only show that the interrogatories were served on the opposing party, the time has expired to respond to the interrogatories and no responses have been served in order for the court to compel the opposing party to respond. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906.) “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.” (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

Here, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories (“FIs”) upon Defendant on December 15, 2023. (Declaration of Nadine Bedwan in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to FIs (“Bedwan FIs Decl.”), ¶ 3.) Defendant did not serve responses to the FIs as of the date of filing of this motion on March 26, 2024. (Bedwan FIs Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling Defendant to serve responses to the FIs.

On June 14, 2024, however, Defendant filed its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the FIs. In opposition, Defendant claims to have provided verified responses to Plaintiff’s FIs on June 12, 2024, and attached the verified responses in a declaration. (Declaration of Gregory G. Brezovic in Support of Opposition to Motion to Compel Responses to the FIs (“Brezovic FIs Decl.”), ¶¶ 3, 5, Exhibit (“Exh.” A.) While acknowledging that it is late in providing the responses, Defendant attributes the delay in its responses to its counsel’s inadvertence, stating that “[a]midst the exponential increase in Song-Beverly matters, a substantial increase in emails contributed to the oversight.” (Brezovic FIs Decl., ¶ 4.) The Court notes that these factors do not constitute excusable neglect, and that the responses contain objections, which are deemed waived due to the responses being served late.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the FIs is GRANTED to the extent that the objections in Defendant’s responses are stricken. If Plaintiff contends that the response is not complete or Code-compliant, he has forty-five days from the date of the hearing on this motion to file a separate Motion to Compel Further. Since no request for sanctions was made in the motion, no sanctions are imposed.

The Court considered the moving papers and opposition filed in connection with this motion.

If a party to whom requests for admission are served fails to provide a timely response, the party to whom the request was directed waives any objections, including based on privilege or the work product doctrine. (CCP § 2033.280(a).) The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted. (CCP § 2033.280(b).) The court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the request was made serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the hearing on the motion. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction… on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion. (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Here, Plaintiff served Requests for Admission (“RFAs”) upon Defendant on December 15, 2023. (Declaration of Nadine Bedwan in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to RFAs (“Bedwan RFAs Decl.”), ¶ 3.) Defendant did not serve responses to the RFAs as of the date of filing of this motion on March 26, 2024. (Bedwan RFAs Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling Defendant to serve responses to the RFAs.

On June 14, 2024, however, Defendant filed its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the RFAs. In opposition, Defendant claims to have provided verified responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs on June 12, 2024, and attached the verified responses in a declaration. (Declaration of Gregory G. Brezovic in Support of Opposition to Motion to Compel Responses to the RFAs (“Brezovic RFAs Decl.”), ¶¶ 3, 5, Exh. A.) While acknowledging that it is late in providing the responses, Defendant attributes the delay in its responses to its counsel’s inadvertence, stating that “[a]midst the exponential increase in Song-Beverly matters, a substantial increase in emails contributed to the oversight.” (Brezovic RFAs Decl., ¶ 4.) Again, this Court does not find this to constitute excusable neglect. The Court further notes that the responses contain objections, which are deemed waived due to the responses being served late.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the RFAs is GRANTED to the extent that the objections in Defendant’s responses are stricken. . If Plaintiff contends that the response is not complete or Code-compliant, he has forty-five days from the date of the hearing on this motion to file a separate Motion to Compel Further. Since no request for sanctions was made in the motion, no sanctions are imposed.

The Court considered the moving papers. No timely opposition was filed. The Court, on its own motion, takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, subsequently filed with this Court on May 15, 2024.

When a party fails to serve a timely response to an inspection demand, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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.” (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Here, Plaintiff served Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”) upon Defendant on December 15, 2023. (Declaration of Nadine Bedwan in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to RFPs (“Bedwan RFPs Decl.”), ¶ 3.) Defendant did not serve responses to the RFPs as of the date of filing of this motion on March 26, 2024. (Bedwan RFPs Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling Defendant to serve responses to the RFPs.

On May 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Errata re Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, in which he stated that on March 27, 2024, Defendant served its untimely and non-Code compliant responses to the RFPs. Plaintiff attached Defendant’s responses to the RFPs to the declaration in support of the motion. (Declaration of Nadine Bedwan in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs (“Bedwan Further RFPs Decl.”), ¶ 15, Exh. 4.) The Court notes that the responses contain objections, which are deemed waived due to their having been served late.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the RFPs is GRANTED to the extent that the objections in Defendant’s responses are stricken. If Plaintiff contends that the response is not complete or Code-compliant, he has forty-five days from the hearing on this motion to file a separate Motion to Compel Further. Since no request for sanctions was made in the motion, no sanctions are imposed.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court