Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWV00697, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWV00697 Hearing Date: September 27, 2023 Dept: C
Velasco v. Dyno Autosales
CASE NO.: 22NWCV00697
HEARING: 9/27/23 @ 9:30 AM
#3
Plaintiff’s
Motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
No sanctions.
Moving Party to give NOTICE.
Plaintiff Elizabeth Velasco (Plaintiff) moves
for an order compelling further responses to her discovery requests.
On
August 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant Dyno Autosales,
Inc. (Defendant) for alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Act for failure to
repair or repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle.
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
parties have adequately met and conferred.
Discussion
Form Interrogatories
Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to
Form Interrogatories Nos. 12.1 and 12.6. No. 12.1 seeks information regarding
witnesses to the “INCIDENT” and 12.6 seeks information regarding reports made
of the “INDICENT.” Defendant objected to the interrogatories on the grounds
they were vague and ambiguous as to the term “INCIDENT.”
Defendant’s vague and ambiguous objection is
proper because the interrogatories are vague and ambiguous as to the events
Plaintiff intended to include in its definition of “INCIDENT.” This is a lemon
law case and Plaintiff chose to define “INCIDENT” as the default: “INCIDENT
includes the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury,
or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or
proceeding.” There are numerous events or circumstances that Plaintiff could
intend to include in her definition spanning from the unknown manufacture date
of the vehicle or purchase in November 2021 to Defendant’s rejection of
Plaintiff’s repurchase request on July 30, 2022. Thus, Defendant’s vague and ambiguous
objections are sustained. Plaintiff’s request to compel for further responses
to her Form Interrogatories is denied.
Special Interrogatories
Plaintiff seeks further responses to Special
Interrogatories Nos. 7, 14-16, 20-22, and 34. Interrogatory No. 7 seeks
information related to emissions testing. Nos. 14-16 seek information related
to Defendant’s unreasonable or unauthorized use affirmative defense. Nos. 20-22
seek information related to Defendant’s maintenance affirmative defense. No. 34
seeks Defendant’s lemon law policies and procedures for the previous four
years.
Interrogatory No. 7 is not relevant to
Plaintiff’s claims because Plaintiff is not claiming that the vehicle failed to
pass an emission check in her Complaint.
Defendant’s responses to Interrogatories Nos.
14-16 are insufficient. Defendant objected to these Interrogatories on the
grounds that the terms “engine concerns”, “repair orders”, “unauthorized”, and “unreasonable
use” were not defined and are therefore vague and ambiguous and the
Interrogatories reference to “repair orders” made them unintelligible.
Defendant’s vague and ambiguous and unintelligible objections are overruled
because “where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but
the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to
provide an appropriate response.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Ca.3d
771, 783.) Thus, Plaintiff’s requests to compel further responses to
Interrogatories Nos. 14-16 are granted.
Similarly, Defendant’s responses to
Interrogatories Nos. 20-22 are insufficient. Defendant objected to these
Interrogatories on the grounds that “engine concerns” and “repair orders” are
vague and ambiguous. However, Defendant’s vague and ambiguous and
unintelligible objections are overruled because the terms are not so vague and
ambiguous because “where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of
the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an
appropriate response.” (Deyo, supra, 84 Ca.3d 771, 783.) Thus, Plaintiff’s
requests to compel further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 20-22 are granted.
Defendant is ordered to provide a further
response to Interrogatory No. 36 because it seeks information within the scope
of discovery. However, the Interrogatory is overbroad as to time. Defendant’s
lemon law policies and procedures from the date of purchase to the date of the
filing of Plaintiff’s lawsuit are within the scope of discovery because they
are relevant to proving whether Defendant followed its policies and procedures
as to Plaintiff’s vehicle. Therefore, Defendant is ordered to provide a further
response to Interrogatory No. 34 with the limitation that it shall produce
responsive documents published from the date of purchase to the date of filing.
Requests for Admission
Plaintiff seeks further responses to Requests
for Admission Nos. 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 17, and 44.
Defendant is ordered to provide further
responses to Requests Nos. 1-4 because the terms are not vague or ambiguous as
they are defined under CCP § 1791.
Defendant is ordered to provide further
responses to Requests Nos. 6 and 7 because Defendant must state whether it
intends to contest whether an Implied Warranty of Merchantability arose from
the sale and whether it disclaimed it.
Defendant is ordered to provide a further
response to Request No. 9, 17, and 44 because the terms objected to are not so
ambiguous “where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the
information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an
appropriate response.” (Deyo, supra, 84 Ca.3d 771, 783.)
Requests for Production
Defendant is ordered to provide further
responses to Request Nos. 5, 6, 7, 18, and 35 because Defendant’s PMK
identified several documents that were not produced which are responsive to
these categories. Plaintiff identifies invoices for repairs and parts,
Plaintiff’s file within Defendant’s DMS system, and records of repairs of
Plaintiff’s vehicle. Further, Plaintiff brought his vehicle to Defendant for
repair on two occasions and Defendant brought the vehicle to Mike’s Auto for
repair. Thus, Defendant is ordered to provide a further response to Requests
Nos. 5, 6, and 7.
Defendant is ordered to provide further
responses to Requests Nos. 13, 30, 31, 32, 46, and 47. The Requests are
overbroad as to time. However, Defendant’s lemon law policies and procedures
from the date of purchase are within the scope of discovery because they are
relevant to proving whether Defendant followed its policies and procedures as
to Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Therefore, Defendant is ordered to provide further
responses to Requests Nos. 16-27, 30, and 31 with the limitation that it shall
produce responsive documents published from the date of purchase to present.
Defendant
is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 15. The Requests are
overbroad as to scope because they seek documents related to vehicles outside
of California. Therefore, Defendant is
ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 33 and 37 with the
limitation that it shall produce responsive documents for California vehicles.
Defendant’s responses to Requests Nos. 26-28 and
36, 39 are insufficient because they fail to state that Defendant conducted a
reasonably diligent search for responsive documents.
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).) Given the mixed ruling, the court declines to
impose sanctions.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth above. Defendant is
to provide further responses within 30 days of this Order.