Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV01130, Date: 2024-06-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01130, Date: 2024-06-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01130 Hearing Date: June 25, 2024 Dept: C

Veronica G. Robles vs FCA US LLC

Case No.: 23NWCV01130

Hearing Date: June 25, 2024

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Veronica G. Robles’ Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted, Set One, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Veronica G. Robles’ Motion to Produce Request for Production, Set One, is GRANTED, verified responses are to be produced within 30 days of this order, without objections.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

This is a lemon law action. On April 13, 2023, Plaintiff Veronica G. Robles (“Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit, alleging various lemon law claims against Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges the subject vehicle, a 2019 Jeep Wrangler, was delivered to Plaintiff with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty, including, but not limited to, the transmission, electrical, structural, engine, and emission system defects. (Complaint ¶¶ 8-10.)

On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff served written discovery on Defendant, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), and the initial RFAs at issue. (“Discovery”). (Serrano Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff contends no responses have been filed, despite providing six months to allow Defendant time to respond.

Plaintiff now moves for an order Compelling the Request for Production of Document, Set One, be produced and to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted.

Legal Standard

Request for Production of Documents, Set One

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.

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); 2031.070, subd. (a) - (b).)

If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Request for Admissions

Where there has been no timely response to requests for admissions, a “requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)

Discussion

On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff served written discovery on Defendant, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), and the initial RFAs at issue. (“Discovery”). (Serrano Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 1.) Defendant failed to respond by the date of the moving papers.

In opposition, Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to properly meet and confer. Defendant also contends that it should be granted relief from the waiver of objections if the party shows that (1) it has served a response that is in substantial compliance with the discovery act, and (2) its failure to timely respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Defendant contends that there is currently an “exponential increase in Song-Beverly matters” which caused an oversight in responding to the RFPs.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that in a motion to compel initial discovery there is no requirement for a meet and confer process.

A party may be granted relief from the waiver of objections if the party shows that (1) it has served a response that is in substantial compliance with the discovery act, and (2) its failure to timely respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (CCP § 2031.300(a)(1)-(2).)

Counsel for Defendant contends that it has subsequently responded to the request for production, set one, and the Request for Admissions, Set One. However, the Court notes that Defendant has not attached any evidence of the purported responses to the Motion or the attached Declaration of Gregory G. Brezovec.

Moreover, in reply, Plaintiff contends there has been no further discovery produced by Defendant.

Here, the Court has no evidence before it to substantiate Defendant’s claims that it has produced the initial discovery.

Because Defendant has not sent verified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in Plaintiff’s motion is admitted.

Additionally, as Defendant has not sent verified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Verified responses are to be produced within 30 days of this order.