Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01419, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01419, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01419 Hearing Date: August 16, 2023 Dept: C

Ross v. General Motors

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01419

HEARING: 8/16/23 @ 10:30 AM

Plaintiff Richard Frank Ross, Jr.’s Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s April 18, 2023 Order is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in part as to the $750.00 for reasonable attorney’s fees in connection with this Motion and DENIED as to the $500.00 per day.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Richard Frank Ross, Jr. (Plaintiff) moves to compel court ordered discovery pursuant to CCP § 2031.300 and sanctions pursuant to 2023.010(g).

Background

On November 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant) for alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Act for failure to repair or repurchase Plaintiff’s 2021 GMC Sierra 1500. Plaintiff alleges his vehicle suffered from defects and Defendant was unable to repair it within a reasonable number of attempts.

Legal Standard

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: … (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (CCP § 2031.300.)

“Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: … (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (CCP § 2023.010.) “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process … pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (CCP § 2023.030.)

Discussion

The court ordered eleven categories of discovery (a-k) at an April 18, 2023 case management conference and stayed all other discovery. The Parties were to serve responses to the court ordered document production within thirty days of the order and file any protective order within five days. On May 1, 2023, Defendant provided Plaintiff with links to the documents it previously produced which it contends were responsive to the court ordered document production categories a-e and k. Plaintiff argues the May 1, 2023 document production is insufficient to comply with the court’s May 16, 2023 order because Defendant merely resent an earlier production which also failed to comply with the court’s April 18, 2023 order. The court agrees. Defendant shall provide responses with verifications within 10 days of this order. The parties are to meet and confer regarding as to agreeable language of the proposed protective order provided by Defendant.

As to sanctions, Plaintiff seeks $750.00 for reasonable attorney’s fees in connection with this motion and $500.00 per day if Defendant fails to comply with the April 18, 2023 order within ten days. The $750.00 in monetary sanctions are awarded for reasonable attorney’s fees, however, the request for sanctions of $500.00 per day for each day Defendant fails to comply with the April 18, 2023 are denied.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Richard Frank Ross, Jr.’s Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s April 18, 2023 Order is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in part as to the $750.00 for reasonable attorney’s fees in connection with this Motion and DENIED as to the $500.00 per day.