Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00038339-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 14, 2023

12/15/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00038339-CU-BC-CTL GUISTO VS FCA US LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff John Guisto's motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.

Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is DENIED.

Plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied.

As an initial matter, the court declines to refuse to consider Defendant's late-filed opposition. However, the court reminds Defendant that 'all papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days . . . before the hearing.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b), underlining added.) The court will be far less likely to accept late-filed papers going forward.

With his motions, Plaintiff seeks further responses from Defendant FCA US, LLC to form interrogatories ('FI') nos. 15.1 and 17.1, and to special interrogatories ('SI') nos. 8-17 and 20-35.

As to FI no. 1.1, Defendant's supplemental response is sufficient. The additional language specifying that the person who worked with Defendant's counsel is also the one who signed the verifications is not 'evasive.' As to FI no. 15.1, Plaintiff appears to take issue with Defendant's failure to separately list out each of its defenses and respond individually to each. On that basis, the court disagrees. However, the court does agree that Defendant has failed to at least specify that its answers regarding facts and witnesses are applicable to its general denial and to its affirmative defenses; the only portion of FI no.

15.1 that Defendant responded to with respect to its affirmative defenses is subdivision (c). As to FI no.

17.1, Plaintiff again takes issue with Defendant's failure to separately list out each of its admission responses and list facts, documents, and witnesses unique to each. Again, the court disagrees that Defendant is required to engage in the kind of exercise desired by Plaintiff where, as here, it is reasonable to conclude the answers are in fact the same or substantially the same in connection with each request.

Accordingly, the motion is granted as FI no. 15.1 and denied as to FI nos. 1.1 and 17.1.

As to the special interrogatories, the court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff's failure to specifically define the phrase 'EGR and related defects' renders the majority of the disputed interrogatories ambiguous, overbroad, and not full and complete in and of itself. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060, subd.

(d).) It is not Defendant's burden to craft code-compliant and coherent interrogatories; Defendant's Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3049372  18 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  GUISTO VS FCA US LLC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00038339-CU-BC-CTL objections in that regard are proper. The motion is therefore denied as to the following special interrogatories: SI nos. 8-16, 20-31.

As to SI nos. 17 and 34, Defendant's responses that it is not making the proffered contentions are sufficient. As to SI nos. 32-33 and 35, the courst agrees that these are not proper contention interrogatories. Plaintiff has failed to identify a pleading or denial from Defendant that might trigger these questions.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is denied.

Defendant is compelled to provide a verified code-compliant supplemental responses to FI no. 15.1 no later than January 5, 2024.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3049372  18