Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV00430, Date: 2024-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00430    Hearing Date: September 18, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 18, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Motions to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Plaintiff Stephen Akka

Responding Party: None

T/R:      PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY ARE GRANTED.

DEFENDANT TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action arising out of Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2023 Land Rover Range Rover, manufactured and distributed by Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC.

ANALYSIS

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 an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP 2030.300(a)(3).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form interrogatories (“FIs”) and special interrogatories (“SIs”).  (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

The moving party on a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) must submit “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).)  If the moving party has shown good cause for the RPDs, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections.  (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to SIs and RPDs.

A. Special Interrogatories

SIs nos. 40-45 seek information relating to Defendant’s policies and investigation into whether Plaintiff’s vehicle, and other vehicles, are eligible for repurchase or replacement. These requests seek relevant and discoverable information. Defendant has not opposed this motion to show otherwise.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to SIs is GRANTED.

B. Requests for Production

RPDs nos. 1, 3, 17, 37-81, 89 and 90 seek documents relating to the repairs of the subject vehicle, relating to the handling of warranty repairs, and complaints made about the same year, make, model of the subject vehicle. These requests seek relevant and discoverable information. Defendant again has not opposed this motion to show otherwise.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPDs is GRANTED.