Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00727, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWCV00727 Hearing Date: September 6, 2023 Dept: C
navarro v. general motors
CASE NO.: 22NWCV00727
HEARING: 9/6/23 @ 9:30 AM
#4
Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production is GRANTED in part.
Moving Party to give NOTICE.
Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s further
response to Request for Production (set one) pursuant to CCP § 2031.310.
Background
On August 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint
against Defendant General Motors for alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Act
for failure to repair or repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle.
Legal Standard
CCP § 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion
compelling further answers to 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 with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b).)
The
Court finds that the parties adequately met and conferred.
Discussion
Plaintiffs seek to compel further responses to Requests Nos.
16, 19-32, 37-41, 45, and 46.
The parties represent that they have met and conferred as to
Requests Nos. 16, 19-32, 45, and 46 and Defendant has produced documents as to
those Requests. Defendant has not supplemented its responses to the Requests to
identify which documents it contends are responsive to which Request. Defendant
is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 16, 19-32, 45, and 46
identifying which documents it has produced are responsive to each Request.
Requests Nos. 37-41 seek codes related to similar vehicles
and customer complaints and labor operations codes from 2018 to present.
Documents of Plaintiff contends that it is seeking “two .pdf files of two pages
each, and appear to be taken from the appendix to some sort of manual. In
dozens of cases, Defendant has produced the same four pages ….” Thus, Defendant
is ordered to provide these files.
Sanctions
The court shall impose
a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a
motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or demand for production
of documents unless the party subject to the sanction acted with substantial
justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc.,
§§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).)
The Court finds that Defendant acted with substantial
justification because the Court believes that the issue could have been
resolved without filing a motion to compel.
According, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is
GRANTED in part with the limitations set forth above.