Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01556, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01556, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01556 Hearing Date: November 1, 2023 Dept: C

suarez, et al. v. general motors

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01556

HEARING: 11/1/23 @ 9:30 AM

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED with the limitations set forth below. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $3,210.00.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiffs Marco Suarez and Jose Ortiz Orozco (collectively Plaintiffs) move to compel Defendant General Motor’s (Defendant) further response to Request for Production (set one) pursuant to CCP § 2031.310.

Background

On December 9, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant for alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Act for failure to repair or repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiffs claim they purchased a 2017 Chevrolet Colorado on February 25, 2017 which was defective.

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).)

Meet and Confer

The Court finds that the parties adequately met and conferred.

Discussion

Plaintiffs seek to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 16, 19-32, 37-41, 45, and 46.

Defendant objected to each request and stated that it would not produce any documents. The parties represent that they have met and conferred as to Requests Nos. 16, 19-32, 45, and 46 and Defendant stated it was willing to produce documents as to those Requests. However, Defendant has not provided supplemental responses as of the date of this hearing. Thus, Defendant is ordered to supplement its Responses identifying which documents it has produced are responsive to each Request as well as produce documents responsive to the Requests.

Requests Nos. 37-41 seek codes related to similar vehicles and customer complaints and labor operations codes from 2018 to present. These requests are overbroad 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 responses 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. (CCP §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h), 2033.290(d).)

The Court finds that Defendant failed to act with substantial justification because it agreed to produce documents only after Plaintiff filed this Motion and has failed to do so. Additionally, it has not agreed to supplement its responses as required by the Code.

Plaintiff seeks $3,210.00 in sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record consisting of three hours drafting the motion, two hours reviewing the opposition and drafting a reply, and two hours for preparing for and attending the hearing at a rate of $450.00 per hour and the $60.00 filing fee. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $3,210.00 against Defendant and its counsel.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED with the limitations set forth above. Defendant is ordered to serve its responses within 20 days of this Order. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $3,210.00. This sanction is to be paid within 30 days of this Order.