Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV01242, Date: 2024-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV01242    Hearing Date: October 30, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 10/30/24

Case #24CHCV01242

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Request for Production of Documents, Set 1)

Motion filed on 4/15/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jorge Arambula Ruiz

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order striking Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.’s objections and compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set 1, Request Nos. 1-31. 

RULING: The motion is denied. 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of Plaintiff Jorge Arambula Ruiz’s (Plaintiff) purchase of a 2022 Volkswagen Tiguan (the Vehicle) on 5/7/22.  Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Defendant) warranted the Vehicle. 

Plaintiff alleges that the Vehicle was delivered to him with defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty.  Plaintiff contends that he presented the Vehicle to Defendant’s authorized repair facility for warranty repairs on multiple occasions.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was unable to conform the Vehicle to the applicable express warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts.  Plaintiff contends that the issuance of Technical Service Bulletins evidences the fact that Defendant had knowledge of the defects with the Vehicle.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has failed to either promptly replace the Vehicle or make restitution in accordance with the Song-Beverly Act. 

On 10/18/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty and (3) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Civil Code 1793.2.  The complaint also includes a cause of action for Negligent Repair against Defendant Neftin Cars, Inc. dba Neftin Volkswagen.  On 11/17/23, Defendant answered the complaint. 

On 12/7/23, Plaintiff served Defendant with Request for Production of Documents, Set 1, by electronic mail.  (Sogoyan Decl., Ex.3).  Because Plaintiff’s electronic service of the discovery was not in accordance with the parties electronic service agreement, the parties subsequently agreed the discovery would be deemed electronically served on 1/9/24 making Defendant’s responses due 2/13/24.  (Oaks Decl. ¶6).  On 2/13/24, Defendant served responses to the document requests by email which asserted objections.  (Sogoyan Decl., Ex.4; Oaks Decl., Ex.C).  Thereafter, the parties met and conferred regarding the responses.  (Sogoyan Decl. ¶¶20-26, Ex.5-8; Oaks Decl. ¶¶8-9, Ex.D-E).  On 3/12/24, Defendant served further responses to the subject document requests and produced 132 pages of documents.  (Sogoyan Decl. ¶18, Oaks Decl. ¶¶10-11, Ex.F-1, Ex.F-2). 

On 4/1/24, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter.  (Sogoyan Decl. ¶27, Ex.9; Oaks Decl. ¶12, Ex.G).  On 4/15/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order striking Defendant’s objections and compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set 1, Request Nos. 1-31.  On 5/30/24, Defendant served 520 pages of its confidential policy and procedure documents, subject to the Stipulated Protective Order between the parties.  (Oaks Decl.. ¶14, Ex.H).  On 10/17/24, Defendant filed and served an opposition to the motion.  On 10/25/24, 2 days late, Plaintiff filed and served a reply.  See CCP 1005(b) (A reply is due 5 court days, not 5 calendar days before the hearing date).  Despite the late filing and service of the reply, it was considered by the Court.  CRC 3.1300(d).

ANALYSIS

Although Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendant served further responses to the subject document requests on 3/12/24, Plaintiff fails to provide a copy of the further responses.  (See Sogoyan Decl. ¶18).  Contrary to Plaintiff’s counsel assertion in the supporting declaration, a copy of Defendant’s further responses are not included as part of Exhibit 4 to the declaration.  (See Sogoyan Decl., Ex.4).  Nor are the further responses attached as a separate exhibit to Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration.  Although Defendant has provided a copy of the further responses served on 3/12/24, in violation of CRC 3.1345, Plaintiff has not included the further responses in the separate statement filed in support of the motion.  See CRC 3.1345(c)(2); (See Oaks Decl., Ex.F-1; See Opposition, p.1:13-15).  As a result, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff’s arguments are addressing deficiencies in the original responses or the further responses which are not included.  Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to establish that the further responses served on 3/12/24 are deficient.     

Additionally, while not the basis for the denial of the motion, the Court notes that in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4), Plaintiff’s counsel has also failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits attached to the declaration filed in support of the motion and the declaration filed in support of the reply.   

CONCLUSION

The motion is denied.