Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 22AHCV00979, Date: 2023-09-26 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 22AHCV00979    Hearing Date: September 26, 2023    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

JUSTIN BOOTH and CYNTHIA BOOTH,

 

                                            Plaintiffs,

vs.

 

GEOVEL, INC., a California corporation d/b/a I-10 CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE RAM; FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

 

                                            Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.:22AHCV00979

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

 

Date:   September 26, 2023

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

         

 

I.        INTRODUCTION

          Plaintiffs Justin and Cynthia Booth sue Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram and FCA US, LLC (FCA) for Song-Beverly Act violations. Plaintiffs allege that they entered into a warranty agreement with Defendants in January 2021 regarding a 2021 Ram 1500.

          Plaintiffs allege that defects and nonconformities manifested themselves during the warranty period; including with the electrical, engine, and transmission systems. Plaintiffs also allege that they delivered the vehicle to an authorized repair facility for repair, but Defendants were unable to conform the vehicle to warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts.

          Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for an order compelling FCA to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 25, 31, and 45-48. FCA provided supplemental responses to these interrogatories after the motion was filed. FCA’s Reply asserts in a footnote that FCA’s responses to numbers 45-48 are still deficient; but it does not specify how or why, and the reason is not obvious from an examination of the responses themselves. These supplemental responses will likely require a further meet and confer process before any motion to compel additional supplemental responses is warranted. The motion is therefore denied without prejudice.  Sanctions are also denied.

 

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

          Code Civ. Proc. §2030.300 governs motions to compel further responses to interrogatories. It provides as follows:

“(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

Motions must be made within 45 days of any response or supplemental response (Subdivision (c)) and must be accompanied by a declaration demonstrating the parties met and conferred to attempt informal resolution; they must also be accompanied by a separate statement or concise outline. (Subdivision (b).)

Subdivision (d) authorizes the imposition of monetary sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, unless the court finds the party who would be subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make sanctions unjust.

         

III.     ANALYSIS

          A. Procedural History

          Plaintiffs served FCA with Special Interrogatories, Set One, on February 23, 2023. Declaration of Armando Lopez, ¶3 and Exhibit A thereto. FCA served its responses on March 30, 2023. Id. at ¶4 and Exhibit B. On May 11, 2023, Plaintiffs sent a meet and confer letter. Id. at ¶5 and Exhibit C. Because this exhibit is simply a copy of an email saying “please see attached correspondence,” Plaintiffs did not provide competent  evidence as to what this letter says. FCA has, however. See Declaration of Christopher M. Fisher, ¶3 and Exhibit 1 thereto.

          By written agreement, the parties stipulated that Plaintiffs had until June 27, 2023, to file a motion to compel further responses. Lopez Declaration at ¶6 and Exhibit D. FCA wrote a responsive meet and confer letter, agreeing to provide supplemental responses to some but not all of the interrogatories mentioned in Plaintiffs’ meet and confer letter. Id. at ¶7 and Exhibit E. Plaintiffs responded by requesting that FCA provide all supplemental responses by June 20, 2023; this was done in connection with the agreement to extend the motion filing date to June 27, 2023. Id. at ¶8 and Exhibit D.

          On June 6, 2023, FCA provided supplemental responses to Special Interrogatory numbers 23, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 43 and 44. Fisher Declaration at ¶4 and Exhibit 2. On September 11, 2023, FCA provided supplemental responses to Special Interrogatory numbers 25, 31 and 45-48. Id. at ¶5 and Exhibit 3.     

B. The Motion is Denied as Moot

This motion to compel is moot. Based on the evidence provided, FCA has served supplemental responses to each of the Special Interrogatories at issue in this motion. As to numbers 45-48, which Plaintiffs’ Reply indicates are still deficient, FCA’s supplemental responses are substantive. The responses state that it “does not track R/1000 data,” but that Defendants will nevertheless conduct a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and, subject to a protective order, agree to “produce documents related to warranty claims data, failure rates, and C/1000 data for the same make, year, and model of the Subject Vehicle.” Although these are interrogatories and not document demands, these responses are substantive in nature. To the extent that Plaintiffs believe that the responses are still defective, they will be required to meet and confer further with FCA, and attempt to reach an informal resolution prior to seeking an order compelling further responses.

On the issue of monetary sanctions, the Court finds that they are not warranted under these circumstances. The meet and confer letters evidence that the parties were in the process of informal resolution and that further efforts on that front, with continued extensions of the time to file a motion, would have been expected. If FCA had expressed in its letters that it was not willing to extend the motion deadline, some sanction award would most likely have been ordered.  But that is not the case here.

 

IV.     ORDER

          Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant FCA to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 25, 31, and 45-48, is denied.  Supplemental responses were provided during the pendency of this motion. This order is without prejudice to any future motion to compel further responses that may be appropriate, following further meet and confer efforts. Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is also denied at this time.

          Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

 

 

 

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT