Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 19NWCV00577, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19NWCV00577    Hearing Date: March 7, 2023    Dept: C

HERNANDEZ v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

CASE NO.:  19NWCV00577

HEARING: 3/7/23 @ 10:30 AM

#1

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Hernandez’s motion to compel compliance with the court’s May 31, 2022 discovery order is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel in the reasonable sum of $500.00.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Emelin Hernandez moves to compel Defendant Kia America’s compliance with the court’s discovery order pursuant to CCP § 2031.310.

Plaintiff alleges that she purchased a 2017 Kia Optima LX from Defendant.  (Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), ¶ 6.)  After Plaintiff took possession of the vehicle, and during the warranty period, the vehicle developed defects, including a defective engine.  (Id., ¶ 11.)  Defendant violated the Song Beverly Act by failing to repair the vehicle after a reasonable number of opportunities, and knew of the engine defect yet failed to repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle or failed to disclose the defect.  (SAC, generally.)  Based thereon, the SAC asserts causes of action for:

1.    CC § 1793.2(d)

2.    CC § 1793.2(b)

3.    CC § 1793.2(a)(3)

4.    Breach of Express Written Warranty - CC § 1791.2(a); CC § 1794

5.    Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability - CC § 1791.1; CC § 1794

6.    Fraud by Omission

When a party refuses to obey a court order compelling further responses to a request for documents, the Court “may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.”  (CCP § 2031.310(i).)

On May 31, 2022, this court ordered the production of “documents identified, which have not already been produced, that are in its possession, custody or control” relating to Nos. 9, 18-19, 21, 24, and 29-30. 

Subsequently, Defendant produced two supplemental productions totaling 45 pages.  Defendant argues that the remaining documents do not exist and are not in Defendant’s possession, as Defendant is not a manufacturer.  To the extent this is true, Defendant is ordered to respond as required under CCP § 2031.230. 

Plaintiff points out that Defendant’s responses are not identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond, as required by CCP § 2031.280.  This would clarify what documents have been produced, when they were produced, and which remain outstanding.  Defendant is ordered to comply CCP § 2031.280. 

Defendant shall produce it’s amended responses to Requests for Production 18-19, 21, 24, and 29-30 within 10 calendar days of this order.

Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel in the reasonable sum of $500.00 within 30 days.