Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 21GDCV00782, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV00782    Hearing Date: March 21, 2023    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

SELVIN R TORRES, an individual,

 

                                            Plaintiff,

vs.

 

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

 

                                            Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 21GDCV00782

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH JULY 22, 2022 DISCOVERY ORDER

 

Date:   March 21, 2023

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

            I.         INTRODUCTION

            This lemon law case concerns Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado. The pleading alleges defects concerning the tire pressure monitoring system, display system, audio system, engine system, and electrical system.

            Prior to the transfer of this case, Judge Rosen (Dept. E, Glendale Courthouse) issued an extensive order on Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production, Set Two. (The July 22, 2022 Order.)

            Plaintiff now seeks an order compelling compliance with the July 22, 2022 Order. Plaintiff also requests $500 daily sanctions for every day the order is not complied with following a 10-day compliance period.

There is no authority for compelling compliance with a discovery order. If a discovery order is disobeyed the next step is to seek issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. The motion is therefore denied.

 

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

            The motion cites Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310 in support of the relief requested. That statute provides the following:

(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

 . . .

(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.

 . . .

(i) Except as provided in subdivision (j), if a party fails to obey an order compelling further response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

III.      ANALYSIS

            As the statute makes clear, when a party fails to comply with an order to compel further responses to demands for production, the propounding party may seek issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. None of those are sought by this motion. There is no provision in the Discovery Act for an order compelling compliance with a discovery order.

            Plaintiff cites a few cases in support of his motion. None are directly applicable.  In Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, the trial court granted a terminating sanction when the defendant failed to comply with a discovery order. In reversing, the appellate court noted that the imposition of discovery sanctions should be incremental and that when faced with willful disobedience such as was exhibited by the defendant (steadfastly refusing to produce documents and continuing to assert objections that had been overruled), the trial court could have imposed significant monetary damages for each day the defendant refused to look for or produce documents. Here, there is no evidence that Defendant refused to look for and produce documents. If there had been evidence of such willful disobedience, Plaintiff could potentially have sought daily sanctions at that time. But that is not what happened. Instead, the evidence is that Defendant GM did provide supplemental responses, albeit late.  (Supplemental responses were due September 5, 2022 and were served September 7, 2022, and verified September 8, 2022.)  

It is the view of Plaintiff’s counsel that the supplemental responses were not code-compliant and that the document production was incomplete. Counsel expressed this view in a meet and confer letter following receipt of the supplemental responses. Declaration of Alessandro Manno, ¶7 and Exhibit 3 thereto. If those meet and confer efforts were unsuccessful a motion to compel further responses could have been filed as to the supplemental responses. However, the 45-day period for doing so has long ago expired. Further, neither the meet and confer letter nor this motion make clear in what way the supplemental responses are not code-compliant. As for the production itself (which is not directly at issue on a motion to compel further responses), Plaintiff seems to assume that emails exist and have not been produced. It is not clear how Plaintiff, or this Court, could know that.  Plaintiff has not presented any evidence to support his assertion in this regard.

            In sum, Lopez does not provide legal authority for an order compelling Defendant to comply with the July 22, 2022 Order; nor does it provide authority for the imposition of daily sanctions five months after Defendant provided supplemental responses.

            Stephen Slessinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Company (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 736 involves outrageous discovery conduct. There, the plaintiff hired a private investigator who, over the course of a few years, pilfered thousands of documents by breaking into Disney buildings and taking confidential papers from secure trash receptacles. The trial court issued a terminating sanction, which was affirmed on appeal. This case is distinguishable factually as there is no such egregious discovery abuse here.  Further, this case does not support the imposition of a daily monetary sanction.

            The other case Plaintiff relies on is a federal action and thus is not controlling here.  See Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco (1991) 951 F.2d 236.      

 

IV.      CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310 does not provide for an order compelling Defendant to comply with the July 22, 2022 Order. It also does it provide authority for the imposition of $500 daily sanctions. Lopez does not provide authority for an order compelling compliance with the July 22, 2022 Order; at most, it provides support for daily monetary sanctions where willful disobedience of a court order has been established.

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with the July 22, 2022 Order is denied.    

            Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

 

           

Dated:                                                                        _______________________________

                                                                                          MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                                 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT