Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV09399, Date: 2024-08-13 Tentative Ruling

All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.

Case Number: 23STCV09399    Hearing Date: August 13, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Hearing date:  August 13, 2024

Moving Party:  Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Responding Party:  Plaintiffs Hector Pena and Guadalupe Maximo

Motion to Compel Vehicle Inspection and Request for Monetary Sanctions

The Court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

The motion is GRANTED and the Court orders Plaintiffs to produce the Subject Vehicle for inspection. Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED.

Background

Plaintiffs Hector Pena and Guadalupe Maximo (collectively herein “Plaintiffs”) are asserting causes of action for (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Express Warranty; and (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Implied Warranty against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc (“Honda”)

On January 29, 2022, Plaintiffs purchased a 2022 Honda HR-V for which Defendant Honda provided express and implied warranties. Subsequently, Plaintiffs began to experience issues with the vehicle and delivered it to an authorized repair facility on numerous occasions thereafter. Despite these visits, Defendant was unable to conform the vehicle to its applicable warranties. Thus, Plaintiffs filed the underlying complaint, alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Act. 

On June 22, 2023, AHM served Plaintiffs with a Notice of Vehicle Inspection (“Notice”) via electronic service. (See Declaration of Monica Y. Hernandez [“Hernandez Decl.”], ¶ 3, Ex. A.) The vehicle inspection was properly noticed for August 30, 2023. (Id.) However, Plaintiffs did not serve a response to the Notice. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs then did not produce the Subject Vehicle for inspection on the date August 30, 2023. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 5.)

On January 5, 2024, Honda proposed March 11, 13, 14, and 15, 2024 as potential dates based on AHM expert’s availability at the time. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. B.) Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated they would reach out to Plaintiffs and their expert “to see [i]f the dates provided work.” (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. C.) However, Plaintiffs did not provide an update on whether the proposed dates work thereafter. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 8.)

On January 18, 2024, Honda reached out to Plaintiffs’ counsel to follow up on whether any of the proposed dates worked. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. D.) Plaintiffs provided no response. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 10.)

On January 25, 2024, Honda reached out to Plaintiffs’ counsel to again follow up on whether any of the proposed dates worked. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. E.) Plaintiffs again did not respond. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 12.)

On February 21, 2024, AHM followed up again and asked Plaintiff to confirm a vehicle inspection date. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. F.) Plaintiffs responded, “Unfortunately, the dates mentioned in your email won’t work with plaintiff or our expert. We’ll seek further availability”. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. G.) Plaintiffs did not provide any response or available dates thereafter. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 15.)

By March 19, 2024, Plaintiffs had still failed to confirm a new date for the vehicle inspection, (Hernandez Decl., ¶¶ 16-17.)

Thus, on March 19, 2024, Defendant Honda filed the instant Motion to Compel Vehicle Inspection and Request for Monetary Sanctions, as well as a Proposed Order and the Declaration of Defense Counsel, Monica Y. Hernandez.

On July 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed its Limited Opposition, as well as the Declaration of Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Keishunn Johnson.

O July 17, 2024, Defendant Honda filed its Reply.

Motion to Compel Vehicle Inspection

Legal Standard

“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 … [a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[;] … [a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[; or] … [a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.”¿ Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310 (a). 

Analysis

Meet and Confer

Defendants have satisfied their requirement to meet and confer by attempting to coordinate and confirm a date for inspection with Plaintiffs. (See Hernandez Decl., Exs. A-G.) Plaintiffs have failed to respond to Defendant’s email correspondence. (Id.) Thus, Defendant Honda has met its requirement to meet and confer before filing the instant motion to compel.

Vehicle Inspection

Defendant Honda moves the Court to issue an order compelling Plaintiffs to produce the 2002 Honda HR-V (VIN: 3CZRU5H53NM726944 (“Subject Vehicle”) for inspection on the grounds that Honda must be afforded the opportunity to inspect the Subject Vehicle to assess Plaintiffs’ claims and prepare a defense in advance of the trial date. (Mot., pg. 3.) Honda further asserts that Plaintiffs’ failure and/or refusal to schedule a vehicle inspection unnecessarily frustrates the discovery process in violation of the Discovery Act and causes undue prejudice to Honda. (Id.) The Court agrees and finds that Defendant must be afforded the opportunity to inspect the vehicle to construct a proper defense. Given Plaintiffs elected to bring the instant action, Plaintiffs must comply with the discovery process necessary to progress the proceedings on their own causes of action. The Court further finds that despite Plaintiffs’ ostensible agreeableness to produce to the Subject Vehicle, Plaintiffs have not engaged with Defendants in good faith and have obstructed efforts to coordinate and confirm a date for the underlying inspection.

On Limited Opposition, Plaintiffs claim the instant motion is moot because Plaintiffs offered August 2, 2024, for the vehicle inspection to proceed. (Johnson Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Moreover, Plaintiffs contend there is still sufficient time to allow the parties to continue meeting and conferring as to an agreeable date given trial is not until March of 2025. On Reply, Defendant responds that given the instant motion was filed on March 19, 2024, after 11 months of Plaintiffs acting in a manner inconsistent with Plaintiffs’ discovery obligations and failing to produce the vehicle or confirm the date, the instant motion is not moot because it was necessitated by Plaintiffs’ obstruction. (Reply, pg. 2.) Plaintiffs failed to serve a response or produce the Subject Vehicle for inspection on August 30, 2023, without substantial justification.

The Court agrees with Defendant Honda. If Plaintiffs have made an offer to produce to the vehicle for inspection subsequent to Defendant’s filing of instant motion instead of before it, such offer does not render the instant motion moot. Indeed, it demonstrates the instant motion was effective in eliciting Plaintiffs’ compliance with the discovery process. Furthermore, the exhibits of email correspondence evidence Plaintiffs’ evasive responses or in some cases, complete lack of response and cooperation with Defendant’s efforts to confirm an instant date. Thus, the Court orders Plaintiff to produce the Subject Vehicle for inspection within thirty (30) days of the hearing on this Motion, if Plaintiffs have not done so already.

Sanctions

Where the court grants a motion to compel, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (h), 2030.300, subd. (d); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Defendants request sanctions in the amount of $1,470.00 for Defendant’s time expended preparing the instant motion and reply. Counsel Hernandez’s hourly rate is $350 per hour, and she declares she spent 2.2 hours preparing the moving papers and anticipated spending another 2 hours to prepare the reply brief and attend the hearing. The Court finds Counsel’s rate reasonable and finds Defendant acted with substantial justification in filing the instant motion. Thus, Honda’s’ request for monetary sanctions is granted against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Counsel, jointly and severally, to be paid within ten (10) days of the hearing on this Motion.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  August 13, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Hearing date:  August 13, 2024

Moving Party:  Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Responding Party:  Plaintiffs Hector Pena and Guadalupe Maximo

Motion to Compel Vehicle Inspection and Request for Monetary Sanctions

The Court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

The motion is GRANTED and the Court orders Plaintiffs to produce the Subject Vehicle for inspection. Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED.

Background

Plaintiffs Hector Pena and Guadalupe Maximo (collectively herein “Plaintiffs”) are asserting causes of action for (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Express Warranty; and (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Implied Warranty against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc (“Honda”)

On January 29, 2022, Plaintiffs purchased a 2022 Honda HR-V for which Defendant Honda provided express and implied warranties. Subsequently, Plaintiffs began to experience issues with the vehicle and delivered it to an authorized repair facility on numerous occasions thereafter. Despite these visits, Defendant was unable to conform the vehicle to its applicable warranties. Thus, Plaintiffs filed the underlying complaint, alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Act. 

On June 22, 2023, AHM served Plaintiffs with a Notice of Vehicle Inspection (“Notice”) via electronic service. (See Declaration of Monica Y. Hernandez [“Hernandez Decl.”], ¶ 3, Ex. A.) The vehicle inspection was properly noticed for August 30, 2023. (Id.) However, Plaintiffs did not serve a response to the Notice. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs then did not produce the Subject Vehicle for inspection on the date August 30, 2023. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 5.)

On January 5, 2024, Honda proposed March 11, 13, 14, and 15, 2024 as potential dates based on AHM expert’s availability at the time. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. B.) Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated they would reach out to Plaintiffs and their expert “to see [i]f the dates provided work.” (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. C.) However, Plaintiffs did not provide an update on whether the proposed dates work thereafter. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 8.)

On January 18, 2024, Honda reached out to Plaintiffs’ counsel to follow up on whether any of the proposed dates worked. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. D.) Plaintiffs provided no response. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 10.)

On January 25, 2024, Honda reached out to Plaintiffs’ counsel to again follow up on whether any of the proposed dates worked. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. E.) Plaintiffs again did not respond. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 12.)

On February 21, 2024, AHM followed up again and asked Plaintiff to confirm a vehicle inspection date. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. F.) Plaintiffs responded, “Unfortunately, the dates mentioned in your email won’t work with plaintiff or our expert. We’ll seek further availability”. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. G.) Plaintiffs did not provide any response or available dates thereafter. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 15.)

By March 19, 2024, Plaintiffs had still failed to confirm a new date for the vehicle inspection, (Hernandez Decl., ¶¶ 16-17.)

Thus, on March 19, 2024, Defendant Honda filed the instant Motion to Compel Vehicle Inspection and Request for Monetary Sanctions, as well as a Proposed Order and the Declaration of Defense Counsel, Monica Y. Hernandez.

On July 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed its Limited Opposition, as well as the Declaration of Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Keishunn Johnson.

O July 17, 2024, Defendant Honda filed its Reply.

Motion to Compel Vehicle Inspection

Legal Standard

“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 … [a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[;] … [a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[; or] … [a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.”¿ Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310 (a). 

Analysis

Meet and Confer

Defendants have satisfied their requirement to meet and confer by attempting to coordinate and confirm a date for inspection with Plaintiffs. (See Hernandez Decl., Exs. A-G.) Plaintiffs have failed to respond to Defendant’s email correspondence. (Id.) Thus, Defendant Honda has met its requirement to meet and confer before filing the instant motion to compel.

Vehicle Inspection

Defendant Honda moves the Court to issue an order compelling Plaintiffs to produce the 2002 Honda HR-V (VIN: 3CZRU5H53NM726944 (“Subject Vehicle”) for inspection on the grounds that Honda must be afforded the opportunity to inspect the Subject Vehicle to assess Plaintiffs’ claims and prepare a defense in advance of the trial date. (Mot., pg. 3.) Honda further asserts that Plaintiffs’ failure and/or refusal to schedule a vehicle inspection unnecessarily frustrates the discovery process in violation of the Discovery Act and causes undue prejudice to Honda. (Id.) The Court agrees and finds that Defendant must be afforded the opportunity to inspect the vehicle to construct a proper defense. Given Plaintiffs elected to bring the instant action, Plaintiffs must comply with the discovery process necessary to progress the proceedings on their own causes of action. The Court further finds that despite Plaintiffs’ ostensible agreeableness to produce to the Subject Vehicle, Plaintiffs have not engaged with Defendants in good faith and have obstructed efforts to coordinate and confirm a date for the underlying inspection.

On Limited Opposition, Plaintiffs claim the instant motion is moot because Plaintiffs offered August 2, 2024, for the vehicle inspection to proceed. (Johnson Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Moreover, Plaintiffs contend there is still sufficient time to allow the parties to continue meeting and conferring as to an agreeable date given trial is not until March of 2025. On Reply, Defendant responds that given the instant motion was filed on March 19, 2024, after 11 months of Plaintiffs acting in a manner inconsistent with Plaintiffs’ discovery obligations and failing to produce the vehicle or confirm the date, the instant motion is not moot because it was necessitated by Plaintiffs’ obstruction. (Reply, pg. 2.) Plaintiffs failed to serve a response or produce the Subject Vehicle for inspection on August 30, 2023, without substantial justification.

The Court agrees with Defendant Honda. If Plaintiffs have made an offer to produce to the vehicle for inspection subsequent to Defendant’s filing of instant motion instead of before it, such offer does not render the instant motion moot. Indeed, it demonstrates the instant motion was effective in eliciting Plaintiffs’ compliance with the discovery process. Furthermore, the exhibits of email correspondence evidence Plaintiffs’ evasive responses or in some cases, complete lack of response and cooperation with Defendant’s efforts to confirm an instant date. Thus, the Court orders Plaintiff to produce the Subject Vehicle for inspection within thirty (30) days of the hearing on this Motion, if Plaintiffs have not done so already.

Sanctions

Where the court grants a motion to compel, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (h), 2030.300, subd. (d); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Defendants request sanctions in the amount of $1,470.00 for Defendant’s time expended preparing the instant motion and reply. Counsel Hernandez’s hourly rate is $350 per hour, and she declares she spent 2.2 hours preparing the moving papers and anticipated spending another 2 hours to prepare the reply brief and attend the hearing. The Court finds Counsel’s rate reasonable and finds Defendant acted with substantial justification in filing the instant motion. Thus, Honda’s’ request for monetary sanctions is granted against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Counsel, jointly and severally, to be paid within ten (10) days of the hearing on this Motion.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  August 13, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Hearing date:  August 13, 2024

Moving Party:  Plaintiffs Hector Pena and Guadalupe Maximo

Responding Party:  Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories From Defendant

The Court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

The motion is DENIED as to both Requests 46 and 48 on the grounds that Defendant Honda’s objections are SUSTAINED. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

Background

Plaintiffs Hector Pena and Guadalupe Maximo (collectively herein “Plaintiffs”) are asserting causes of action for (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Express Warranty; and (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Implied Warranty against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc (“Honda”)

On January 29, 2022, Plaintiffs purchased a 2022 Honda HR-V for which Defendant Honda provided express and implied warranties. (Declaration of Angelica Zamudio (“Zamudio Decl.,” ¶ 2.) Subsequently, Plaintiffs began to experience issues with the vehicle and delivered it to an authorized repair facility on numerous occasions thereafter. (Ibid.) Despite these visits, Defendant was unable to conform the vehicle to its applicable warranties. (Ibid.) Thus, Plaintiffs filed the underlying complaint, alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Act. (Ibid.)

On September 7, 2023, Plaintiffs sent Defendant a First Set of Special Interrogatories. (Zamudio Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A.) On October 24, 2023, AHM served its responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories Set One. (Zamudio Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. B.) On November 27, 2023, Plaintiffs initiated the meet and confer process by sending a letter to AHM that specified the deficiencies in AHM’s responses. (Zamudio Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. C.) On December 19, 2023, the parties met and conferred telephonically and narrowed the Requests for Production in dispute to RFP Nos. 46 and 48. (Zamudio Decl., ¶ 6; Ex. D.) On January 18, 2024, the parties met and conferred again telephonically regarding RFP Nos. 46 and 48 and agreed to a Motion to Compel deadline of January 26, 2024. (Zamudio Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. E).

Thus, on January 26, 2024, after failing to reach resolve, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”), Set 1, along with a Request for Sanctions, a Separate Statement, a Proposed Order, and the Declaration of Angelica Zamudio (“Zamudio Decl.”).

On July 31, 2024, Defendant Honda filed its Opposition, along with its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement.

On August 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Reply.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Legal Standard

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)  

“Notice of motions to compel further responses to discovery must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (c).)  The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b), 2031.310, subd. (b), 2033.290, subd. (b).)   

“Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)). 

Analysis

Meet and Confer

Plaintiffs have satisfied their meet and confer requirement. Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Angelica Zamudio, declares the parties met and conferred telephonically for a final time on January 18, 2024, before filing the instant motion on January 26, 2024. (Zamudio Decl., ¶ 6.) Thus, the meet and confer requirement is met.

Request Nos. 46 and 48

The interrogatories at issue for this motion seek information regarding the repairs per thousand vehicles sold for 2022 Honda HR-V vehicles; and the five symptoms and components with the highest repair rates per thousand for 2022 Honda HR-V vehicles.

No. 46:  State the repairs per thousand vehicles sold (R/1000) for 2022 Honda HR-V Vehicles– DENIED.

Defendant objects on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ Request here is overbroad, vague, and ambiguous, as well as overly broad in scope and unduly burdensome in requesting such a quantum of work required for production. Thus, Defendant maintains in Opposition that the request is improper and imposes an unreasonable burden on Defendant that is incommensurate with the result sought. (Sep. State., pg. 9.) The Court agrees. Plaintiff’s request is unclear as to what “state the repair” means and requesting Defendant produce such information on the basis of a thousand vehicles is unduly burdensome in relation to the requests likelihood to lead to admissible evidence.     

Defendant’s response is sufficient and its objections have merit.

No. 48:  Identify in order the five components with the highest repairs per thousand (R/1000) for 2022 Honda HR-V vehicles, and the corresponding repairs per thousand.– DENIED.

Defendant provides the same objections as to Request No. 46, objecting on grounds that the request is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, overly broad in scope, and unduly burdensome. Thus, the Court reiterates its findings from Request No. 46, further noting that Plaintiff’s Request is overly broad in both time and scope. Defendant argues that such a burden is only valid when that burden is demonstrated to result in an injustice. The Court agrees there is no such showing here and that the request is unclear in meaning.

            Defendant’s response is sufficient and its objections have merit.

Sanctions

Where the court grants a motion to compel further responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (h), 2030.300, subd. (d); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant Honda in the amount of $1,830.00 due to the time Plaintiffs have expended attempting to meet and confer and prepare the instant motion.  For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes Defendant Honda acted with substantial justification in opposing the instant motion.  Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is denied. Defendant Honda does not request sanctions for the costs of defending the instant motion. As such, the Court declines to impose monetary sanctions on either party.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  August 13, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court