Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01330, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01330, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01330 Hearing Date: January 18, 2024 Dept: C

MIJANGOS v. GEORGE CHEVROLET

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01330

HEARING: 01/18/24

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

Moving Party to give notice.

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

Background

On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants GEORGE CHEVROLET; and GENERAL MOTORS LLC (“Defendants”) for violation of the Song-Beverly Act and negligent repair.

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. 16, 19-32, 37-41, and 45-46.

Requests Nos. 16, 19-32, and 45-46 are moot because Defendant served further responses. (see Reply 1:15-24.)

Requests Nos. 37-41 seek codes related to similar vehicles and customer complaints and labor operations codes from vehicles that are the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle. These requests are overboard because they seek information not related to Plaintiff’s vehicle. Therefore, these requests will be limited to codes related to repairs made to Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant is ORDERED to provide further response to Requests Nos. 37-41 with the codes applicable to repairs made to Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED in part as set forth above.