Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV01518, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CHCV01518 Hearing Date: January 2, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 1/2/24
Case #22CHCV01518
MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Form
Interrogatories, Set 1)
Motion filed on 8/31/23.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Elias Habib
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Mission Hills Hyundai
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion is granted as set forth
below.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of Plaintiff Elias Habib’s (Plaintiff)
lease of a 2020 Hyundai Ioniq. Plaintiff
contends that Defendant Mission Hills Hyundai (Mission Hills) was unable to
repair persistent manufacturing defects and Defendant Hyundai Motor America
(Hyundai Motor) failed to promptly repurchase or replace the vehicle. Therefore, on 12/29/22, Plaintiff filed this
action against Mission Hills and Hyundai Motor for: (1) Violation of
Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty against Hyundai Motor, (2)
Violation of the Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty against Hyundai
Motor, (3) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2(b) against Hyundai
Motor and (4) Negligent Repair against Mission Hills.
On 6/14/23, Plaintiff electronically served Mission Hills
with Form Interrogatories, Set 1. (Urner
Decl., Ex.1). On 7/14/23, Mission Hills electronically
served responses which Plaintiff deemed to be insufficient. (Urner Decl., Ex.2). On 8/21/23, Plaintiff sent Mission Hill a
meet and confer letter regarding the discovery responses. (Urner Decl., Ex.3). Mission Hills failed to respond or provide
further responses. (Urner Decl.).
Therefore, on 8/31/23,
Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Mission Hills to provide further, verified
responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set 1, Nos. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1 and
17.1 within 10 days of the hearing on this motion. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in
the amount of $2,954.25 against Mission Hills and its counsel
of record, Brian Yasuzawa and Logan Hensley of Rosewaldorf LLP. Mission Hills has not opposed or otherwise
responded to the motion.
ANALYSIS
A party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending
action, if the matter itself is admissible or is reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence.
CCP 2017.010.
CCP 2030.220 provides:
“(a) Each answer in a response to
interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information
reasonably available to the responding party permits.
(b) If an interrogatory cannot be
answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.
(c) If the responding party does
not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory,
that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to
obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations,
except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”
CCP 2030.300(a) provides:
“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.”
Mission Hills’ responses to the subject Form
Interrogatories are inadequate.
Form Interrogatory 1.1 asks Mission Hills to provide
information regarding each person who prepared or assisted in preparing the
responses to the interrogatories.
Mission Hills merely identifies its counsel and Mission Hills,
generally, and then objects on the ground the interrogatory is overbroad. The response fails to provide any substantive
information and the objection to this question which has been approved by the
Judicial Council is without merit.
Form Interrogatory 12.1 asks Mission Hills to identify
the individuals who witnesses the incident or surrounding events, who made any
statement regarding the incident, who heard any statements about the incident
from anyone who witnessed it and who Mission Hills or anyone acting on its
behalf claim has knowledge of the incident, except for expert witnesses. Mission Hills “identifies the service managers,
technicians, and other dealership personnel who are listed in the Repair Orders
produced in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One. Further,
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210(a)(2) and 2030.230, KHMH
refers Plaintiff to the service records regarding the subject vehicle (namely,
Repair Order No.’s 68032, 77642, and 82930) produced in response to Plaintiff’s
Request for Production of Documents, Set One.”
However, Plaintiff claims that the names of technicians are not listed
on the repair orders and Mission Hills has not opposed the motion to show
otherwise. Mission Hills also objects to
the term “incident.” However, based on
the definition of the term in the interrogatories, it can include more than one
circumstance or event. As such, Mission
Hills’ objections are without merit.
Form Interrogatory 15.1 asks Missions Hills to identify
each denial of a material allegation and each special affirmative defense in
its pleadings and for each state the facts which support same, identify
witnesses with knowledge of such facts and identify documents and/or tangible
things which support the denials and defenses and identify who has those
documents and/or tangible things.
Mission Hills’ response consists of meritless objections and refers to
its answer which is insufficient as it does not respond to the questions asked. Mission Hills states that its general denial
and affirmative defenses were lodged as a precaution in the event that
information and evidence is uncovered later to support those defenses. If Mission Hills has no facts or evidence to
support any if its defenses, it must clearly state so in further verified
response.
Form Interrogatory 17.1 asks Mission Hills to provide
information (facts, witnesses, documents) which support its responses to
requests for admissions which were not unqualified admissions. Mission Hills has failed to properly respond
to each of the subparts as to each request for admission response at issue, has
asserted unsupported objections and has failed to provide any substantive
information.
Plaintiff is entitled to sanctions against Mission Hills
and its counsel for their failure to comply with their discovery
obligations. CCP 2023.010(e), (f),
2023.020; 2023.030(a), 2030.300(d). As
such, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $1,641.75 (2.5 hours to prepare
motion + .5 hours to prepare for and attend the hearing multiplied by $525/hour
+ $60 filing fee + $6.75 electronic filing fee).
CONCLUSION
The motion is granted.
Mission Hills is ordered to provide further responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set 1, Nos. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1 and 17.1 within 30 days. Sanctions are imposed against Mission Hills
and its counsel of record, Brian Yasuzawa and Logan Hensley of Rosewaldorf LLP
in the amount of $1,641.75, payable within 30 days.