Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01306, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01306, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01306 Hearing Date: October 11, 2023 Dept: C

Gutierrez v. Honda

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01306

HEARING: 10/11/23 @ 10:30 AM

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to His Requests for Production (set one) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling further responses to his Requests for Production (set one).

Background

On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Defendant) for violation of the Song-Beverly Act and fraud.

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).)

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks further responses to Requests Nos. 20, 23, 24, and 53-60.

Requests Nos. 20 and 56-60 are moot because Defendant served further responses.

Defendant has properly responded to Nos. 23 and 24 because it stated that it conducted a diligent search and no responsive documents ever existed. Further Defendant asserts that it has withdrawn its attorney-client privilege objection.

Nos. 53 and 54 seek documents related to similar vehicles and customer complaints. These requests are overbroad because they seek documents related to vehicles worldwide. Therefore, these requests will be limited repairs and customer complaints concerning 2021 Honda Civics sold in California. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 53 and 54 as to 2021 Honda Civics sold in California.

No. 55 is overbroad because it seeks all documents produced in a separate case. Plaintiff argues that the Request is relevant because it may contain customer complaints of similar defects. However, the request is unduly burdensome because it is not limited to documents related to complaints similar to Plaintiff’s. Further, Nos. 53 and 54 cover the same documents. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for further response to No. 55 is denied.

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. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to His Requests for Production (set one) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth above. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses within 30 days of this order. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.