Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV36332, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: May 5, 2023

Case Name: Ruiz, et al. v. FCA US LLC, et al.

Case No.: 22STCV02248 

Matter: Motion to Compel Further Responses

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Abraham Ruiz and Rosa Espadas 

Responding Party: Defendant FCA US LLC 

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted in part.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is a lemon law action.  Plaintiffs Abraham Ruiz and Rosa Espadas seek to compel further responses from Defendant FCA US LLC to their requests for production, set one, nos. 1, 8, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 43, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78.

The Motion is granted as to request no. 1, which seeks all documents relating to the subject vehicle.  Defendant should provide documents in the possession of its repair facilities.  

The Motion is denied as to request no. 8 because there is no temporal limitation such that the request is overbroad and overburdensome.

The Motion is granted as to request nos. 11-12, 20-21, 27, 30-31, 70-74, and 77-78.  Defendant states that its databases do not contain the subject documents and that such documents have never existed.  However, Plaintiffs’ separate statement demonstrated that at least certain responsive documents do exist and that it does not seem that Defendant completed a thorough search.  Defendant did not directly respond to this argument, such that the argument is conceded.

The Motion is denied as to request no. 17 because seeking all documents relating to internal analysis for a defect is overbroad and overburdensome.  

The Motion is denied as to request nos. 19, 22-23, 29, 32-33, which are also overbroad and overburdensome to the extent encompassing vehicles other than the subject vehicle.

The Motion is denied as to request no. 43 because Defendant properly indicates that videos and audio relating to the subject vehicle do not exist.

The Motion is denied as to request no. 75 because Defendant indicates that it will comply.

The Motion is granted as to request no. 76, which seeks documents relating to Defendant’s general recall procedure.  This is relevant.

In sum, the Motion is granted in part as set forth above.  Further responses are to be provided within thirty days.  The Court declines to award sanctions.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.