Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01587, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01587, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01587 Hearing Date: August 30, 2023 Dept: SEC

ceballos v. cerritos dodge

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01587

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

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to his Special Interrogatories is GRANTED with the above limitations. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Joseph Ceballos (Plaintiff) moves for an order compelling further responses to his Special Interrogatories pursuant to CCP § 2030.300.

Background

On December 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Cerritos Dodge, Inc. for alleged negligent repair and FCA US, LLC (FCA) for alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Act for failure to repair or repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Legal Standard

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(CCP § 2030.300(a).)

Meet and Confer

The parties have adequately met and conferred.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling further responses to five Special Interrogatories. Interrogatory No. 31 seeks FCA’s lemon law polices and procedures. Interrogatories Nos. 45-48 seek information related to rate of repair and defect information related to 2019 RAM 1500 vehicles generally.

As to Interrogatory No. 31, the Interrogatory is overbroad because it is not limited as to time. Per this Court’s standard lemon law discovery order, the Interrogatory will be limited policies and procedures published from the date the Plaintiff’s vehicle was purchased to the date the lawsuit was filed. FCA is ordered to provide a further responses as to its policies and procedures from the date of purchase to the date the lawsuit was filed.

As to Interrogatories Nos. 45-48, the Interrogatories are overbroad because they are not limited as to scope. Per this Court’s standard lemon law discovery order, the Interrogatories will be limited to information of 2019 RAM 1500 vehicles sold in California. FCA is ordered to provide further responses as to 2019 RAM 1500 vehicles sold in California.

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).)

Here, Plaintiff and FCA seek sanctions against each other. Each party acted with substantial justification because there is a lack of on point authority as to the scope of lemon law discovery. Therefore, each party’s request for sanctions is denied.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to his Special Interrogatories is GRANTED with the above limitations. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.