Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23GDCV00652, Date: 2023-11-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23GDCV00652 Hearing Date: January 30, 2024 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: January 30, 2024 TRIAL
DATE: No date set.
CASE: JUAN F. RODRIGUEZ,
an individual, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, and SUNNYVALE
FORD, INC., a California Corporation d/b/a SUNNYVALE FORD, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 23GDCV00652
MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Sunnyvale Ford, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff
Juan F. Rodriguez
SERVICE: Filed November 9, 2023
OPPOSITION: Filed January 17, 2024
REPLY: Filed January 23, 2024
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Sunnyvale Ford moves for an order
compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to its requests for the
production of documents.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiff Juan F.
Rodriguez’s lemon law claim for a 2020 Ford F-150, Vehicle Identification
Number 1FTEW1CP5LFB87630 (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff filed
this complaint on March 29, 2023.
TENTATIVE RULING
Sunnyvale Ford’s motion for an order compelling Plaintiff to
provide further responses is DENIED as moot.
LEGAL STANDARD
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). “Unless notice of
this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or
any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the
requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the
requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests
for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290, subd. (c).
DISCUSSION
Sunnyvale
Ford moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to
its requests for the production of documents. Sunnyvale Ford provides it served
its discovery requests on Plaintiff on August 22, 2023. (Lee Decl. ¶ 6.) Sunnyvale Ford provides Defendant served deficient
responses on September 25, 2023. (Id. ¶
7.)
In opposition, Plaintiff provides that he served supplemental
responses. (Amarkarian Decl. ¶ 8., Exhibit 1.) Plaintiff’s supplemental
responses were served concurrently with the opposition to this motion. In
reply, Sunnyvale contends that Plaintiff only served the supplemental responses
to avoid the present hearing and that the responses are deficient because they
are unverified.
Because Plaintiff has served supplemental responses, albeit
belatedly, the court declines to rule on the present motion especially without
an updated separate statement detailing the sufficiency, or lack thereof, of
each response.
However, the court emphasizes that “reasonable and food faith
efforts at informal resolution of discovery disputes are no doubt a key part of
the discovery system.” (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th
424, 434.) Further, “ ‘ “[m]issue of the discovery process includes failing to
respond or submit to authorized discovery [and] providing evasive discovery
responses . . ..” ’ ” (Clement v. Aleegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277,
1286.) The court cautions the parties against any future efforts to avoid
engaging in the discovery process in good faith and warns that sanctions will
be imposed against parties violating these precepts.
CONCLUSION
Sunnyvale Ford’s motion for an order compelling Plaintiff to
provide further responses is DENIED as moot.
Moving
Party to provide notice.
Dated: January 30,
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