Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 23STCV21660, Date: 2025-01-16 Tentative Ruling

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

This is a Song-Beverly action. Before the court are Plaintiff Christina Gozy’s three (3) motions to compel Defendant Mercedes Benz USA, LLC’s further discovery responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents.

On March 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed motions to compel Defendant to provide initial responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents. Defendant filed opposition which, in part, requested leave to file motions for relief from waiver of its objections.

On June 25, 2024, while Plaintiff’s motions to compel initial responses were pending, Plaintiff filed motions to compel Defendant’s further discovery responses to the same set of discovery—Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents.

On August 20, 2024, after taking the matter under submission, the court granted the motions to compel initial responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of

Documents. Defendant was ordered to serve verified, objection-free responses to the Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, within 30 days of the court’s order. Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories was denied because Defendant provided responses. Defendant’s request for relief from waiver of its objections was denied.

As to Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses, the court continued the motions to October 16, 2024 to allow the parties to participate in an informal discovery conference (IDC).

The motions to compel further responses were heard on October 16, 2024. In advance of the hearing, the court issued a tentative ruling denying the motions because the parties had not participated in an IDC or apprised the court of the status of the discovery dispute. After oral argument, the court continued the hearing for the motions to allow the parties to participate in an IDC.

The parties attended an IDC on December 5, 2024. The issues were not resolved. The court proceeds to rule on Plaintiff’s motions.

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300 and 2031.310, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories requests for production of documents¿where an answer to the request is evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.¿ The motion “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)¿¿¿¿¿¿¿

Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c); 2031.310, subd. (c).)¿ The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)¿¿¿¿¿¿¿

Finally, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(3).)¿¿¿¿¿¿

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as: making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)¿¿¿¿¿

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction.¿¿¿¿

If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or inspection demands, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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, subd. (h).)¿

According to Plaintiff’s separate statements, Plaintiff seeks further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 4.1, 4.2, 12.1-12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1, 17.1, 50.1-50.6, Special Interrogatories Nos. 1-34, and Request for Production of Documents (RPD) Nos. 1-90. The court rules as follows.

Plaintiff argues a further response is warranted because Defendant provided objection-only responses to the Form Interrogatories despite having waived its right to assert objections. The argument lacks merit. In the court’s August 20, 2024, order, the court found that “Defendant served belated responses to the Form Interrogatories which are substantially compliant. Defendant is entitled to relief from the waiver of objections as to the Form Interrogatories. The motion to compel Defendant’s responses to the Form Interrogatories is DENIED.” (Minute Order, 8/20/24.) The court also notes that Defendant provided substantive responses to the Form Interrogatories. Accordingly, the court rules on the sufficiency of Defendant’s substantive responses to the Form Interrogatories as follows:

Defendant served a mixture of objection and substantive responses. Like the Special Interrogatories, Defendant waived its right to object to the production requests. With this in mind, the court rules as follows:

Nos. 1-7: Granted. Defendant stated it would comply but has yet to produce any documents. The motion is construed as a motion to compel compliance.

Nos. 8-9: Granted. Inability to comply statement is not code complaint. (CCP § 2031.230.)

No. 11: Granted. Defendant stated it would comply but has yet to produce any documents. The motion is construed as a motion to compel compliance.

Nos. 12-43: Granted. Objections have been waived. No substantive response provided.

No. 44: Granted. Inability to comply statement is not code complaint. (CCP § 2031.230.)

No. 45-47: Granted. Objections have been waived. No substantive response provided.

Nos. 48-51: Granted. Defendant stated it would comply but has yet to produce any documents. The motion is construed as a motion to compel compliance.

Nos. 52-57: Granted. Inability to comply statement is not code complaint. (CCP § 2031.230.)

Nos. 59-60: Granted. Inability to comply statement is not code complaint. (CCP § 2031.230.)

Nos. 61-66: Granted. Objections have been waived. No substantive response provided.

No. 67: Granted. Inability to comply statement is not code complaint. (CCP § 2031.230.)

Nos. 68-80: Granted. Objections have been waived. No substantive response provided.

No. 81: Granted. Inability to comply statement is not code complaint. (CCP § 2031.230.)

Nos. 82-83: Granted. Objections have been waived. No substantive response provided.

No. 84: Granted. Inability to comply statement is not code complaint. (CCP § 2031.230.)

Nos. 85-87: Granted. Defendant stated it would comply but has yet to produce any documents. The motion is construed as a motion to compel compliance.

Nos. 88-90: Granted. Objections have been waived. No substantive response provided.

Plaintiff request sanctions against Defendant. If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction. Here, Plaintiff does not state her request for sanctions in the notices of motion. Accordingly, the request for sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s motions are Granted in Part, and Denied in Part. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses or produce documents consistent with its statements of compliance within 30 days of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court