Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV00174, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00174, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00174 Hearing Date: January 17, 2024 Dept: C

Rios v. american honda

CASE NO.: 23NWCV00174

HEARING: 1/17/24 @ 9:30 AM

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production is GRANTED in part.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Jovanny Teran Rios (Plaintiff) move to compel Defendant American Honda Motor Co.’s (Defendant) further response to Request for Production (set one) pursuant to CCP § 2031.310.

Background

On January 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for 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 Court finds that the parties adequately met and conferred.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 19-23, 31-35, 39, 52-54, and 98.

Defendant has produced documents as to Requests Nos. 19-23, 31-35, 39, and 98. Thus, Plaintiff’s request to compel further responses as to Requests Nos. 19-23, 31-35, 39, and 98 is denied as moot.

Requests Nos. 52-53 seek documents related to similar vehicles and customer complaints.

Request No. 52: All DOCUMENTS evidencing complaints by owners of 2021 Honda Accord vehicles regarding any of the complaints that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented to YOUR or YOUR authorized repair facilities for repair during the warranty period.

Request No. 53: All DOCUMENTS evidencing warranty repairs to 2021 Honda Accord vehicles regarding any of the components that YOU or YOUR authorized repair facilities performed repairs on under warranty.

These requests are overbroad because they seek documents related to vehicles worldwide. Therefore, these requests will be limited repairs and customer complaints concerning 2021 Honda Accords sold in California. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 52 and 53 as to 2021 Honda Accords sold in California.

Request No. 54: All DOCUMENTS produced by YOU in discovery in the matter of Kathleen Cadena, et al., v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., et al, United States District Court, Central District of California Case No. 2:18-cv-04007-MWF-PJW.

Request No. 54 is overly broad as it seeks all documents produced in a separate class action lawsuit and cannot easily be limited. This type of request is not tailored at all to this case. While some documents may be relevant, there are undoubtedly many documents which are in no way relevant to this action. The court has no obligation to modify discovery requests to make them entirely proper. (Deaile v. Gen. Tele. Co. of Cal. (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 841, 850-53.) Thus, Plaintiff’s request for a further response to Request No. 54 is denied.

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, Defendant failed to act with substantial justification. Defendant has failed to provide sufficient justification for it providing discovery responses four months after Plaintiff filed his Motion. Plaintiff seeks $2,035.00 in sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, consisting of two hours drafting the motion, two hours reviewing the opposition and drafting a reply, and one hour preparing for and attending the hearing at a rate of $395.00 per hour and the $60.00 filing fee. Because Plaintiff has filed a boilerplate motion, the Court awards sanctions in the reasonable amount of $850.00 for two hours of attorney’s fees and costs.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED in part with the limitations set forth above and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $850.00. This sanction is to be paid within thirty days of this Order.