Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00854, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00854    Hearing Date: March 27, 2024    Dept: C

ROJAS, ET AL. v. PREMIER AUTOMOTIVE OF PLACENTIA, LLC, ET AL.

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00854

HEARING: 3/27/24 @ 9:30 A.M.

#3

TENTATIVE RULING

I.             Plaintiff Luis Acevedo Rojas and Aquetzali Acevedo Sanchez’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED.  No sanctions.

II.            Plaintiff Luis Acevedo Rojas and Aquetzali Acevedo Sanchez’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED.  No sanctions.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

The motion is unopposed as of March 27, 2024.

This is a Song-Beverly action.

Meet and Confer

The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) 

The Court finds Plaintiffs adequately met and conferred. (Decl. Lopez, ¶¶ 5-6, Ex. C.)

Timeliness

Notice of the motion to compel further must be provided within 45 days of service of the verified response or on or before any specific later date to which the parties have agreed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) This 45-day deadline runs from the date the verified response is served and is extended for service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure sections 1010.6, subdivision (a)(4) and 1013, subdivision (a). Failure to timely move to compel within the specified period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)

On July 28, 2023, the defendant served unverified responses to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of documents. (Decl. Lopez, ¶ 4, Ex. B.) Responses consisted of both factual responses and objections. (Decl. Lopez, ¶ 4, Ex. B.) The 45-day clock runs only upon service of verified responses, and responses consisting of both factual responses and objections must be verified. (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 136.) Defendant has not served verifications. (Decl. Lopez, ¶ 4, Ex. B.) Thus, the clock has not run.

Requests for Production of Documents

Plaintiffs Luis Acevedo Rojas and Aquetzali Acevedo Sanchez move to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One served on defendant FCA US LLC.   

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further responses to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection is without merit or too general. 

Good Cause

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to request numbers 45 and 46.

As to motions to compel further document responses, moving parties must file evidence showing good cause based on specific facts that the requested matter is admissible evidence, or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of such evidence. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223-24.) "[E]ven when no . . . supporting affidavits are filed . . .good cause may be found in the pleadings theretofore filed in the action." (Greyhound Corp.  v.  Super.  Ct.  (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 389.)

In their moving papers and separate statement, Plaintiffs assert that request number 45 seeks complaints by owners of the same subject vehicle type and request number 46 seeks documents evidencing warranty repairs of the same subject vehicle type. Plaintiffs argue that evidence regarding other similar vehicle complaints would tend to show whether a widespread defect or nonconformity exists, when the defect first arose, defendant’s knowledge of widespread problems, and defendant’s failure to act despite this knowledge. This is relevant to proving whether a civil penalty is warranted because it would tend to show the willfulness of defendant’s conduct.

Plaintiffs argue that information about repairs may support whether a defect or nonconformity exists in the subject vehicle type and when the defect or nonconformity first arose. And it may refute affirmative defenses that plaintiffs misused or abused the vehicle or engaged in unauthorized or unreasonable use.

Based on the above, the Court finds good cause.

The motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to serve verified discovery responses within 30 days.

Special Interrogatories

Plaintiffs Luis Acevedo Rojas and Aquetzali Acevedo Sanchez move to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One served on defendant FCA US LLC.   

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a) allows a party to file a motion compelling further responses to interrogatories if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection is without merit or too general. 

Special Interrogatory numbers 19-23, 25, 29, 31, 43-44, and 45-48

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to interrogatory numbers 19 to 23, 25, 29, 31, 43 to 44, and 45 to 48.

“‘An order compelling discovery must rest on a showing that the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence….’"  (Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 117.) The burden rests upon the party seeking the discovery to provide evidence from which the court may determine these conditions are met. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223-224.)

Plaintiffs assert that interrogatory numbers 19 to 23, 25, 29, 31, and 43 to 44 seek information regarding defendant’s policies, procedures, and training that defendant provides with respect to its handling of consumer reports under the Song-Beverly Act. They seek this information to determine whether the defendant willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act.

Plaintiffs assert that interrogatory numbers 45 to 48 seek repair rates for the subject vehicle. Plaintiffs argue that this information is relevant to proving that their vehicle contained a defect and could refute defendant’s affirmative defenses claiming that Plaintiffs and others misused or abused the vehicle or engaged in unauthorized or unreasonable use of the vehicle.

Based on the above, the Court finds good cause.

Sanctions

In a motion to compel further discovery responses, the court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Because the instant motions are unopposed, the Court does not award sanctions.