Judge Joseph Lipner, Case Number: 23STCV05971, Date: 2023-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Jong Bum Lee (Plaintiff) moves to compel initial responses from defendant FCA US, LLC (FCA) to her (1) form interrogatories, set one (2) special interrogatories, set one, and (3) requests for production of documents, set one, and to deem admitted the matters referred to in her requests for admissions (RFAs), set one. She also requests monetary sanctions.

The motions to compel are DENIED as moot because FCA has belatedly served discovery responses to the discovery propounded by Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s motion for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in part in the amount of $1,930.00. FCA shall pay Plaintiff’s counsel $1,930.00 within 30 days.

This is a lemon law action. Plaintiff alleges she purchased a 2021 Chrysler Pacifica in May 2021. The vehicle exhibited substantial defects, and defendants failed to promptly replace it or make restitution. Plaintiff sued on March 17, 2023 for three violations of Civil Code section 1793.2, breach of express written warranty, and breach of the implied warranty of habitability.

Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling defendant FCA to respond to her initial sets of written discovery, to deem matters referred to in her RFAs admitted, and imposing monetary sanctions against FCA for failure to timely respond.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010) . . . [and] The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a)-(b).) The Code provides equivalent remedies for a propounding party upon a responding party’s failure to timely produce documents. (See id., § 2031.300, subds. (a)-(b).)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom requests or admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…[t]he party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against a party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the person or entity acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.90, 2033.280, subds. (c); Cal. Rule of Court, rule 3.1348.)

Plaintiff’s counsel attests Plaintiff propounded discovery on April 3, via U.S. Mail; Plaintiff granted Defendant a thirty-day extension to respond, placing its response deadline on June 7; and as of the date Plaintiff’s motion was filed, July 13, 2023, Plaintiff had not received responses. (Hori Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.) Counsel’s declaration satisfies sections 2031.290, 2031.300, and 2033.280.

FCA argues it provided code compliant responses on September 9 and 13 and therefore Plaintiff’s motion(s) “ha[ve] been rendered moot.” (Hanson Decls., ¶¶ 4-6.) Plaintiff agrees responses were provided by September 13. (Reply, 2:4-8.) While motions compelling responses may no longer be necessary, sanctions remain warranted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

FCA argues Plaintiff did not meet and confer prior to filing these motions. (Opp., 3:9-4:4.)[1] There is no such requirement.

FCA argues, alternatively, that its failure to timely respond was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Opp., 4:5-6.) Defendant’s counsel testifies to administrative mistake. (Hanson Decls., ¶ 7.) The standard for relief from sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act is “substantial justification or ... other circumstances [that would] make imposition of the sanction unjust.” (See § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Mistake is not substantial justification, and the Court declines to relieve FCA from sanctions.

As to Plaintiff’s RFAs, Plaintiff appears to acknowledge she has received code-compliant responses. Where code-compliant responses to RFAs are served prior to the hearing on a motion to deem admitted, the Court imposes only monetary sanctions, not the sanction of admissions. (§ 2033.280, subd. (c).) The Court declines to deem the matters referred to in Plaintiff’s RFAs admitted.

As to hours spent, counsel’s declarations are internally inconsistent: in her “Joint Declaration” she declares she spent 3.0 hours preparing all 3 motions (one assumes neglecting RFAs), but in her declaration accompanying Plaintiff’s RFA motion counsel states 1.5 hours preparing “all 3 motions” (unclear to which motions she is referring). The court finds 3.0 hours reasonable for preparation of the 4 motions. Plaintiff’s counsel estimates 1.0 hour preparing the reply, which is reasonable. She also estimates both 4 and 2 hours, respectively, in each declaration “for actual attendance and time incurred on the road”, which is not reasonable, particularly where remote attendance is available for such a straightforward motion. The court awards 1 hour of appearance time for all 4 motions. Counsel also testifies to $180 in filing fees, which were indisputably incurred.

The court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions to compel as moot. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, awarding sanctions in the amount of $1,930.00 against Defendant FCA US, LLC.

[1] The arguments in all oppositions being substantially identical, the Court for convenience cites only to FCA’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories.