Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01004, Date: 2024-07-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23NWCV01004 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Dept: C
Christopher Doliveira vs FCA
US, LLC, et al.
Case No.: 23NWCV01004
Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m.
#3
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Christopher Doliveira’s Motions to
Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (set one), Form Interrogatories
(set one), and Request for Production of Documents (set one) are MOOT.
Monetary Sanctions are awarded in the sum of $1980.00,
including costs, payable within 60 days.
Plaintiff to give notice.
Background
This is a lemon law action. On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff
Christopher Doliveira sued Defendants FCA US, LLC and Cerritos Dodge Chrysler Jeep
alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Act and Negligent Repair.
Plaintiff served the first set of discovery upon Defendant FCA
US, LLC (FCA US) on November 3, 2023. On
March 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed motions to compel responses to special interrogatories
and request for production of documents. On April 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion
to compel responses to form interrogatories. FCA US served its responses on
June 24, 2024.
Legal Standard
A
party may make a demand for production of documents
and propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after
the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand
is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (b);
Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).) The demand for production of documents
is not limited by number, but the request must comply with the formatting
requirements in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030. A party may
propound specially prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action and any additional number of official form
interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.030, subd. (a)(1) - (a)(2).)
The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to
respond within 30 days after service of a demand, but the parties are allowed
to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060, subd.
(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.070, subd. (a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070,
subd. (a) - (b).)
If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production or
interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to
exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, and
waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for
work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., §
2030.290, subd. (a).)
The party who propounded the discovery request may bring a motion
to compel and the court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party,
person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a
response to a demand for production of documents or interrogatories, unless the
court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial
justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction
unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290,
subd. (c).)
Discussion
On November 3, 2024, Plaintiff served the first set of
discovery which included Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special
Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One.
In opposition, FCA US states that on June 24, 2024, it
served responses for each and every discovery response. Defense counsel also
states that it did not previously serve responses due to mistake, inadvertence,
or excusable neglect. Counsel declares
that the failure to respond in a timely manner was caused by the “exponential
increase in Song-Beverly matters” and “a substantial increase in emails”.
In reply, Plaintiff states that while responses were served,
the responses contained objections, and no documents have been produced. Plaintiff argues that FCA US should be
ordered to provide responses without objections and to pay sanctions.
Because FCA US served responses which were in substantial
compliance, and Defense counsel claims that the failure to serve timely responses
was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, the Court finds the
motions are MOOT.
Sanctions
Misuse of the discovery process constituting conduct subject to
sanctions include “failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of
discovery” and “failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an
opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve
informally any dispute concerning discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010,
subds. (d) and (i).) The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one
engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that
conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees,
incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030,
subd. (a).) All discovery motions require a meet and confer declaration stating
facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of
each issue presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)
Because responses were served four months after the motions
were filed, sanctions are warranted.
Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,760.00
(2 hours preparing the motion and 4 hours reviewing the opposition, drafting
the reply, preparing for oral argument, and attending the hearing, at a rate of
$450.00 per hour. Counsel also seeks reimbursement of the $60.00 filing fee)
for each motion.
Given the similarity of each motion, reply, and accompanying
declarations, and the fact that each motion will be heard concurrently, sanctions
are GRANTED in the reasonable sum of $1980.00, which includes $180.00 in filing
fees, payable within 60 days.