Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV00648, Date: 2024-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00648    Hearing Date: March 18, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      March 18, 2024                                   TRIAL DATE: August 13, 2024

CASE:                         JESUS DIMAS ZUNIGA and LILLIANA TOVAR ZUNIGA, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV00684

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Jesus Dimas Zuniga and Lilliana Tovar Zuniga

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed December 11, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiffs move for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to their requests for the production of documents.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiffs Jesus Dimas Zuniga and Liliana Tovar Zuniga (“Plaintiffs”) lemon law claim for a 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Vehicle Identification Number 1GCPWBEKXLZ360542 (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiffs filed their complaint on March 22, 2023, alleging one cause of action for violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is DENIED.

            Plaintiffs’ request for sanction is denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party making a discovery request may move for an order compelling a response if the party to whom the requests were made fails to serve a timely response, including for special interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.290, subd. (b)) and requests for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.300, subd (b)). A party must serve a response within 30 days after service of a discovery request. (Code Civ. Proc. sections 2030.260, subd, (a) and 2031.260, subd.(a).)

On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and request for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310).

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs moves for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to their requests for the production of documents. Plaintiffs provide they served Defendant with their first set of requests for the production of documents on September 29, 2023. (Thomas Decl. ¶

 5.) Plaintiffs provide that Defendant served deficient responses on October 27, 2023, which included unverified responses. (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs provide that Defendant provided verification of its responses on November 28, 2023. (Id. ¶ 7.)

As a preliminary note, the court address Plaintiffs’ separate statement. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires a separate statement to include “[a] statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute”. While Plaintiffs facially complies with this requirement by including a “reason why further responses should be compelled” next to the discovery requests, Plaintiffs merely includes a block of stock language claiming that Defendant’s objections are meritless and boilerplate. Much like Defendant’s boilerplate objections are unhelpful to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs boilerplate statements of insufficiency are not helpful to this court to determine whether further responses should be ordered as to the specific discovery requests.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is based on a deficient separate statement. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is denied.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is DENIED.

            Plaintiffs’ request for sanction is denied.

Dated:   March 18, 2024                                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org