Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00480, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00480    Hearing Date: April 25, 2023    Dept: C

PIZANO v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00480

HEARING: 4/25/23 @ 9:30 AM

#2

TENTATIVE RULING

I.             Plaintiff Pizano’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to form Interrogatory 15.1 is DENIED.  No sanctions.

II.            Plaintiff Pizano’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to special interrogatories is DENIED as to nos. 14, 40-45 and GRANTED as to no. 61.  Defendant is to provide a further response to no. 61 within 20 days.  No sanctions.

III.          Plaintiff Pizano’s motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents nos. 1, 3, 9, 17, 37-78 and 86-88 is DENIED.  No sanctions.

Opposing Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Pizano moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and document requests pursuant CCP §§ 2030.300 and 2031.310.   

CCP §§ 2030.300 and 2031.310 allow a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories and document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general.  The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (CCP §§ 2030.300(b) and 2031.310(b).) 

The court finds Plaintiff adequately met and conferred.

Form Interrogatory No. 15.1

These requests seek facts supporting Defendant’s denial or defenses; identify the individuals who have knowledge of those facts; and documents that support those facts.

Ford responds that its denial is based on Ford’s “various tests, inspections, and evaluations to validate that the subject vehicle did not exhibit any problems that would adversely impact the vehicle’s use, value or safety.”  Ford then identified the documents, employees of the dealerships where Plaintiff’s vehicle was repaired, as well as Ford employees identified in the records, as well as the addresses where they may be contacted.

The court finds that the responses are adequate.  If Plaintiff requires more specific facts, Plaintiff may utilize other discovery means of obtaining this information such as depositions.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.  No sanctions because Ford did not request any.

Special Interrogatory Nos. 14, 40-45 and 61

No. 14 seeks the identity of persons who performed warranty repairs. 

Ford’s supplemental response identifies four individuals and their addresses.  Ford is a distinct and independent entity from its repair facilities or dealerships.  Plaintiff may utilize other discovery means of obtaining this information directly from the repair facility.

Nos. 40-41 seeks the identify of individuals whose responsibility is to supervise to ensure that “a” vehicle should be repurchased or replaced pursuant to Song-Beverly; and how they perform their duties.

This Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome.  It is not limited to a reasonable or relevant timeframe and the subject vehicle.

Nos. 42-45 seek Ford’s investigation into whether the vehicle qualified for repurchase or replacement; the identity of individuals involved in Ford’s investigation; and documents obtained through the investigation.

Ford’s supplemental response identifies five individuals and their addresses.  Defendant has adequately answered the question.  If Plaintiff is unsatisfied with the response, Plaintiff may utilize other discovery means of obtaining this information such as depositions.

No. 61 seeks the total number of days the vehicle was out of service for warranty repairs.  Ford responded that it will produce documents that contain this information, such as the claim history and repair records, and that Ford’s discovery is ongoing.  The court finds that this response is inadequate.  Ford can determine how long the vehicle was out for service, and if it does not currently know, it must If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. (CCP 2030.220(b).)  If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party. (CCP § 2030.220(c).) 

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to nos. 14, 40-45 and GRANTED as to no. 61.  Defendant is to provide a further response to no. 61 within 20 days.  No sanctions because Ford did not request any.

RPD Nos. 1, 3, 9, 17, 37-78 and 86-88

The court finds that Ford has adequately responded to the requests with documents that are in its possession.  Ford did not repair Plaintiff’s vehicle.  Ford is a distinct and independent entity from its repair facilities or dealerships.  Plaintiff may utilize other discovery means of obtaining this information directly from the repair facility.

Accordingly, the motion

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED in part only as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 22-23.  All other requests are DENIED.

The motion to compel further responses to requests for documents is DENIED.

No sanctions because Ford did not request any.