Judge Joel L. Lofton, Case Number: 23AHCV02123, Date: 2024-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV02123, Date: 2024-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02123 Hearing Date: June 3, 2024 Dept: X

Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE: June 3, 2024 TRIAL DATE: January 14, 2025

CASE: MATTHEW RYAN HELGANZ v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC

CASE NO.: 23AHCV02123

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Matthew Ryan Helganz

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

SERVICE: Filed March 5, 2024

OPPOSITION: Filed May 20, 2024

REPLY: Filed May 24, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff requests this Court for an order to strike Defendant’s objections and compel further responses to his request for production of documents (set one) Nos. 1-3, 7-9, 15-16, 23-24, 27-28, 37-38, 49-50, 59-60, 65-66, 69-72, 78-79, 86, 88-90, 99, 113-118, and 129-130.

Plaintiff also requests this Court impose monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $3,160.00.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action arising out of Plaintiff Matthew Ryan Helganz’s (“Plaintiff”) purchase/lease of a 2020 Land Rover Range Rover Velar with the VIN SALYK2EX3LA258017 (“Subject Vehicle”) on or about January 6, 2019. Plaintiff claims the Subject Vehicle was substantially impaired due to defects/nonconformities that manifested themselves during the warranty period and Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (“Defendant”) failed to promptly replace or make restitution in accordance with the Song-Beverly Act.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant on September 13, 2023, asserting causes of action for: (1) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(d); (2) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(b); (3) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(a)(3); and (4) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to his request for production of documents (set one) is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses and a privilege log within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, subdivision (a), provides: “[t]he party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following: [¶] (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities. [¶] (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item. [¶] (3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210(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. [¶] (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240(b).)

“If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240(c)(1).)

MEET AND CONFER

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides, in pertinent part, the moving party shall include a meet and confer declaration as provided in section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b).) The meet and confer declaration “shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

Plaintiff’s counsel has provided a meet and confer declaration attesting to facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve this matter prior to filing the instant motion. (Stoliker Decl., ¶¶26-29, Exs. 7-10.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant’s objections and compel Defendant to provide further responses to his request for production (“RFP”) Nos. 1-3, 7-9, 15-16, 23-24, 27-28, 37-38, 49-50, 59-60, 65-66, 69-72, 78-79, 86, 88-90, 99, 113-118, and 129-130.

Request for Production of Documents (Set One)

Each of the specified RFPs requests take the same form, requesting “all documents” such as summaries, memoranda, powerpoints, communications with government agencies, internal investigations, policies and procedures, and analysis of the Engine and Infotainment Defects directly concerning the Subject Vehicle. In response to these requests, Defendant blanketly asserted objections on the basis of attorney-client privilege, attorney-work product doctrine, trade secret, confidential business information, premature expert opinion, vagueness, overbreadth, and burden.

Here, Plaintiff has shown that Defendant’s responses to the RFPs are not code-complaint because they fail to identify the specific documents that fall within the category of documents being sought for which the objection was made. Furthermore, Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause exists for compelling further responses to the RFPs. Specifically, the RFPs are relevant to the claims at issue in this instant case and seek information likely to lead to discovery of admissible such as whether Defendant had prior knowledge of the defects/nonconformities purportedly suffered by the Subject Vehicle. Moreover, the RFPs seek information directly concerning the Subject Vehicle. Likewise, Defendant has not shown that it would be unduly burdensome to produce these documents.

Therefore, the Court finds that an order compelling further response to Plaintiff’s RFPs is warranted.

Monetary Sanctions

“Except as provided in subdivision (j), 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 further response to 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(h).)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks sanctions in the amount of $3,160.00 for an hourly rate of $395.00 for 8.0 hours spent in preparing this motion. (Stoliker Decl., ¶38; Mot. 17:11-15.) However the Plaintiff did not include this (or any) amount in its initial motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated: June 3, 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