Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01287, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01287, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01287 Hearing Date: March 26, 2024 Dept: C

Yolisma Martinez vs American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Case No.: 22NWCV01287

Hearing Date: March 26, 2024 @ 9:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is MOOT. The Requests for Sanctions are DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

This is a lemon law case. Plaintiff Yolisma Martinez (“Plaintiff”) purchased a 2021 Honda CR-V (the “Subject Vehicle”) which was distributed and warranted by Defendant Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Defendant”).

Meet and Confer Requirement

A motion¿to compel further responses to requests for production “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).)¿ The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.)¿

The Court finds that the parties have satisfied the meet and confer requirement.

Separate Statement

A motion to compel further responses requires a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) Plaintiff properly filed separate statements.

Legal Standard

A party may make a demand for production of documents and propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).) The demand for production of documents is not limited by number, but the request must comply with the formatting requirements in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030.

The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service of a demand, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.070, subd. (a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070, subd. (a) - (b).)

If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production or interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to special interrogatories as follows:

Special Interrogatory 14

If YOU contend that the SUBJECT VEHICLE does not qualify for repurchase under the provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, please state all facts supporting YOUR contention.

Special Interrogatory 43

State all facts supporting YOUR contention that YOU maintain a qualified third-party dispute resolution process in California.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses was filed on December 15, 2023. Defendant provided further responses on January 16, 2024.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is MOOT.

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).)

Both parties submit requests for sanctions against the other. Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2135.00 because Defendant produced further responses only after Plaintiff filed the instant motion. Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $2160.00 for abuse of the discovery process. Defendants argue that Plaintiff served 247 discovery requests, and after AHM responded, Plaintiff demanded further response to 104 discovery requests in boilerplate correspondence. Given Defendant’s late responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 43, the number of discovery requests propounded by Plaintiff and Defendant’s voluntary compliance, the Court declines to issue sanctions against either party.

Accordingly, the requests for sanctions are DENIED.