Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 22CHCV01321, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV01321, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV01321 Hearing Date: January 14, 2025 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 1/14/25 TRIAL DATE: 10/27/25

Case #22CHCV01321

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE

Motion filed on 10/3/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Oliva Morena Posada

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. to produce documents consistent with its responses to requests for production of documents. Additionally, Plaintiff requests an order imposing sanctions against Honda and its counsel of record, Clark Hill LLP, in the amount of $2,130.00.

RULING: The motion is moot, in part, and granted, in part.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of Plaintiff Olivia Morena Posada aka Olivia M. Posada’s (Plaintiff) lease/purchase of a 2022 Honda CR-V (the Vehicle). Plaintiff contends that the Vehicle is defective and Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) has been unable to service or repair the Vehicle to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of opportunities. Plaintiff further contends that despite the foregoing, Honda has failed to promptly replace/repurchase the Vehicle as required under the Song-Beverly Act.

As a result, on 12/7/22, Plaintiff filed this action against Honda for: (1) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty and (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty. Honda filed an answer to the complaint on 1/3/23.

On 3/14/23, Plaintiff propounded Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1, on Honda. (Lupinek Decl., Ex.A). On 4/25/23, Honda served responses to the requests. (Id., Ex.B). On 5/8/24, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to various document requests, including Request 45. (See 5/8/24 Minute Order). On 6/10/24, Honda served further responses to the various document requests, including to Request 45. (Id., Ex.F). In further response to Request 45, Honda stated:

“The requested production will be allowed in whole and AHM will produce Customer Retention and Resolution System Reports and Tech Line Contact Reports (redacted to protect the privacy of third parties), that identify complaints by owners of 2022 Honda CR-V vehicles in California regarding the complaints for which the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented to an authorized Honda repair facility for warranty repair, based on the following search terms: “brake system warning light on,” “driver assist warning lights on,” “brake system warning light on,” “ACC warning light on,” and “adaptive cruise control warning light on.” These documents contain information that is private, confidential, commercially sensitive, proprietary, and/or trade secret, and will be produced pursuant to the protective order in this case.”

Id.

Despite indicating that responsive documents would be produced, Honda did not produce any such documents. (Lupinek Decl.). On 9/25/24, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Honda’s counsel indicating that a motion would be filed if the responsive documents were not received by 10/2/24. (Id., Ex.G). On 9/25/24, Honda’s counsel’s office acknowledged receipt of the meet and confer letter and indicated that they would respond by 10/2/24. (Id., Ex.H). No further response/documents were received on 10/2/24. (Lupinek Decl.).

Therefore, on 10/3/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion which seeks an order compelling Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. to produce documents consistent with its responses to requests for production of documents. Additionally, Plaintiff requests an order imposing sanctions against Honda and its counsel of record, Clark Hill LLP, in the amount of $2,130.00. Honda has opposed the motion. Plaintiff has not filed a reply to the opposition.

At the 1/9/25 hearing on Honda’s ex parte application to continue trial and related dates, the Court noted that the opposition to the instant motion indicates that the motion is moot and no reply had been filed. (See 1/9/25 Minute Order). In response, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that Plaintiff may want to argue the motion as to sanctions. Id. The Court ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to notify the court by 4:30 p.m. that day (1/9/25) to confirm whether the hearing on the instant motion should be taken off calendar or is to proceed. Id. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to contact the Court as ordered.

ANALYSIS

As noted above, the opposition indicates that the motion is moot because on 10/4/24, Honda served an amended further response to Request 45 which states that no documents resulted from Honda’s search and no responsive documents have ever existed. (Hom Decl., Ex.3).

Honda contends that Plaintiff has not established any prejudice from the timing of Honda’s amended further response to Request 45 and, therefore, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions should be denied.

Since Plaintiff has failed to file a reply in response to Honda’s claim that its amended further response to Request 45 renders the motion moot, the Court finds that the request to compel compliance is moot.

However, the Court finds that due to Honda’s first further response to the request indicating that responsive documents would be produced, Honda’s failure to produce such documents, and Honda’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter as agreed, Plaintiff was forced to incur fees and costs related to the filing of this motion.

As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs related to this motion as sanctions against Honda and its former counsel, Clark Hill LLP. See CCP 2031.320(c). The Court finds that reasonable fees and costs amount to $1,185.00 (2 hours to prepare the motion + ½ hour to prepare for and attend the hearing multiplied by $450/hour + $60 filing fee). (See Lupinek Decl. ¶¶14-15).

CONCLUSION

The request to compel compliance is moot. The request for sanctions against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and its former counsel, Clark Hill LLP is granted in the reduced amount of $1,185.00. Sanctions are payable within 30 days.