Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 21STCV38263, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38263    Hearing Date: April 6, 2023    Dept: 55

IRIGOYEN v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC                                              21STCV38263

Hearing Date:  4/6/23,  Dept. 55

#6:   MOTION FOR ISSUE, EVIDENTIARY, MONETARY, AND/OR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S JUNE 20, 2022, AND JUNE 21, 2022, ORDERS RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE).

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

MP:  Plaintiff

RP:  Defendant

Summary

On 10/18/21, Plaintiff MARCENE IRIGOYEN filed a Lemon Law Complaint alleging that Plaintiff’s purchased 2020 Cadillac XTS vehicle has known defects involving the infotainment and backup camera systems, which Defendant has been unable to repair within a reasonable time, but Defendant failed to repurchase it, in willful violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order compelling full compliance with prior orders, and imposing various kinds of discovery sanctions including $500 in monetary sanctions, on grounds including the following:

·         Defendant failed to comply with discovery orders dated 6/20/22 and 6/21/22, regarding special interrogatories and document requests.

·         Defendant failed to serve any supplemental response to Special Interrogatories Nos. 14, 20, and 43.

·         Defendant failed to serve a proper supplemental responses in compliance with June 20, 2022, court order to Request for Production Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 28.

·         Defendant failed to serve the remainder of documents relating to the above Requests for Production of Documents.

·         Defendant failed to produce any document when it served its initial unverified discovery

·         responses on June 20, 2022.

RP Positions

Opposing party advocates denying, for reasons including the following:

·         The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel further special interrogatory responses.

·         The motion (filed 1/11/23) is moot, because on August 7, 2022, in compliance with the order, GM served Plaintiff with supplemental responses concerning Plaintiff’s Request for Production for Documents Requests.

·         The Court should deny Plaintiff’s groundless request for prospective sanctions.

·

Tentative Ruling

The motion is granted as to compelling further responses to special interrogatories and monetary sanctions, and denied as to documents.

Within 20 days, Defendant shall serve further responses to the special interrogatories, as ordered on 6/21/22.

Additionally, within 20 days, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff sanctions in the sum of $500.00.

            Special Interrogatories

No supplemental response was served as to interrogatories, and the opposition incorrectly states that the motion was denied.  So, clearly the 6/21/22 order granting, was violated,  stating,  “defendant to give plaintiff the name of the third party vendor and point of contact as well as the name of the dealerships. This information is to be give to plaintiff within 15 days (July 6, 2022). All other documents are to obtained by plaintiff from the dealer.”

            Document Requests

As to documents, there is no order violation.  Specifically, the supplemental responses, served pursuant to the 6/20/22 order, are in statutory compliance, by stating production was in whole, except inability to produce nonexistant documentation, as further shown in the separate statements.

A document response must consist of:  1) an agreement to comply, stating whether the productions or inspection will be allowed “in whole or in part,” and that all documents or things in the possession, custody or control of the respondent, as to which no objection is made, will be included, by the date set for inspection (unless informally extended in writing, or the designated timing is subject to objection);   2) a representation of inability to comply, with a specification of any person believed or known to have possession of documents;  or, 3) objections and specification of withheld documents.  CCP §§2031.210(a), 2031.220, 2031.270, 2031.280(b).  

On 6/20/22, the Court ordered, in material part:

The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by MARCENE IRIGOYEN on 02/09/2022 is Granted.

Further responses are due within 45 days.

Defendant's request regarding response to #4 is heard and granted. Request #4 is too broad and the court is limiting the responses to the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle.

Defendant’s responses, set forth in the separate statements, are not in full compliance with the Discovery Act.

For example, most responses, including the following response to request number 5, do not indicate documents being produced and withheld….

The response to request number 11 is another example of only vaguely indicating what documents might be produced, and what would be withheld….