Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 23CHCV03823, Date: 2025-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV03823, Date: 2025-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV03823 Hearing Date: January 27, 2025 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 1/27/25 TRIAL DATE: 2/17/26

Case #23CHCV03823

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1)

Motion filed on 5/6/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jesus Branlin Orozco Fuentes

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant FCA US, LLC

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant FCA US, LLC to provide verified further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1, and to provide verifications for the original responses. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Clark Hill LLP, in the amount of $2,856.00.

RULING: The motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part, as set forth below.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of Plaintiff Jesus Branlin Orozco Fuentes’ (Plaintiff) purchase, on or around 4/6/23, of a 2023 Dodge RAM 1500 which was manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant FCA US, LLC (Defendant). In connection with the purchase, Plaintiff received an express written warranty which provided, in relevant part, that in the event a defect developed with the Vehicle during the warranty period, Plaintiff could deliver the Vehicle for repair services to Defendant’s representative, and the Vehicle would be repaired.

Plaintiff contends that during the warranty period, and within less than three weeks of purchasing the Vehicle, the Vehicle contained or developed various defects, including defects involving the braking system and the driveshaft. Soon after, Plaintiff alleges he experienced a series of electrical concerns regarding the backup camera. As such, Plaintiff contends that the alleged defects substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the Vehicle.

On 12/15/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for: (1) Violation of Civil Code 1793.2(d); (2) Violation of Civil Code 1793.2(b); (3) Violation of Civil Code 1793.2(a)(3);

(4) Breach of Express Written Warranty; (5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability and (6) Violation of Tanner Consumer Warranty Protection Act. On 1/17/24, Defendant answered the complaint.

On 1/22/24, Plaintiff propounded written discovery on Defendant, including Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1. (Katz Decl., Ex.1). Despite Plaintiff granting Defendant’s request for an extension of time to respond until 3/25/24, on 2/26/24, Defendant served unverified responses to the requests. (Id, Ex.2). Plaintiff contends that many of the responses consist mostly of boilerplate objections and Defendant failed to respond to many of the requests. After repeated requests, on 3/21/24, Defendant served verifications for the discovery responses. (Id., Ex.3-5).

On 4/2/24, Plaintiff began meet and confer efforts regarding the subject discovery responses; however, Defendant failed to respond. (Id., Ex.6-8). Therefore, on 5/6/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant FCA US, LLC to provide verified further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1, numbers 4, 7-8, 11-14, 28, 31-32, 34, 39, 42-43, 48, 50, and 54-55 and to provide verifications for the original responses. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Clark Hill LLP, in the amount of $2,856.00. The motion was originally scheduled for hearing on 12/24/24 but was rescheduled by the Court to 1/27/25. However, any opposition and reply were due pursuant to the original 12/24/24 hearing date. (See 11/27/24 Notice of Continuance).

Defendant has not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion.

ANALYSIS

Generally, a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the action, if the matter either is itself admissible or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See CCP 2017.010.

When responding to a document request, the responding party must respond separately to each item or category of item by: (1) a statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to CCP 2031.030(c)(2) and any related activities; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item and/or (3) an objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling. See CCP 2031.210(a).

A party may move to compel further responses to document requests if it deems: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive and/or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. See CCP 2031.310(a).

If a timely motion to compel further responses is filed, the responding party has the burden of justifying any objection. Fairmont Insurance Co. (2000) 22 C4th 245, 255; Coy (1962) 58 C2d 210, 220-221; Williams (2017) 3 C5th 531, 541-542.

Here, the subject discovery requests seek documents regarding: (1) the Vehicle; (2) Defendant’s Internal Knowledge and Investigation regarding the defects in 2023 Dodge RAM 1500 Vehicles; (3) Summaries, Memoranda, Power Points, regarding the Defects in 2023 Dodge RAM 1500 Vehicles; (4) Song Beverly Act and Buyback Policies and Procedures; (5) Communication with Governmental Agencies and Suppliers regarding 2023 Dodge RAM 1500 vehicles; and (6) Other Documents Related to the Vehicle’s Defects.

Defendant’s responses to the subject requests are evasive, non-responsive and/or include meritless objections.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately defined the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” such that Defendant’s objections based on the use of those terms in the subject requests is without merit. To the extent there was any confusion with regard to these terms, Defendant could have responded to the extent possible or pursuant to the limitations Plaintiff offered during the meet and confer process, which Defendant seemingly ignored.

Certain of the subject responses are not code-compliant because they indicate that Defendant “will comply in part” and include boilerplate objections making it unclear what documents Defendant will provide and what documents are being withheld based on the objections.

Information regarding vehicles other than the Vehicle at issue in this action is necessary to prove Defendant’s willful violation of the Song-Beverly Act. To the extent Defendant was aware of the defects and still refused to repurchase the Vehicle, Defendant may be liable for willful violation of the Song Beverly Act. Such awareness can be established by various means, including: evidence that Plaintiff’s Vehicle had not been repaired after a reasonable number of attempts; internal investigations that show that Defendant was aware of the defect in other vehicles; and warranty records showing that other consumers were also affected by the defect. See Oregel (2001) 90 CA4th 1094, 1104-1105; Troensegaard (1985) 175 CA3d 218, 226; Santana (2020) 56 CA5th 334, 344, 347-348; Bowser (2022) 78 CA5th 587, 605, 627; Donlen (2013) 217 CA4th 138, 154.

Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the subject requests are not vague or ambiguous. The requests are reasonably particularized and relate to specific allegations and facts in this case.

Defendant has also failed to meet its burden of establishing that any of the subject requests are burdensome or harassing.

Defendant has also failed to support or provide a privilege log in relation to its objections based on attorney work-product and/or attorney-client privilege. See CCP 2031.240(c).

Plaintiff entitled to an award of sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Clark Hill LLP, in the amount of $2,061.75 (2.8 hours to prepare motion + 1 hour to prepare for and appear at the hearing multiplied by $525/hour = $1,995.00 + $60.00 filing fee + $6.75 costs for filing). CCP 2023.030(a); CCP 2031.310(h).

CONCLUSION

Defendant FCA US, LLC is ordered to provide further, verified responses to Plaintiff Jesus Branlin Orozco Fuentes’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1, numbers 4, 7-8, 11-14, 28, 31-32, 34, 39, 42-43, 48, 50, and 54-55 within 30 days.

Sanctions are imposed against Defendant FCA US, LLC and its counsel of record, Clark Hill LLP, in the amount of $2,061.75, payable within 30 days.

Plaintiff’s request for an order requiring Defendant to produce verifications for the original discovery responses is denied as moot. Defendant provided a verification for the original responses on 3/21/24. (Katz Decl. ¶8, Ex.5).

Dept. F47

Date: 1/27/25 TRIAL DATE: 2/17/26

Case #23CHCV03823

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Form Interrogatories, Set 1 & Special Interrogatories, Set 1)

Motion filed on 5/6/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jesus Branlin Orozco Fuentes

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant FCA US, LLC

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant FCA US, LLC to provide verified further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set 1, and Special Interrogatories, Set 1. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Clark Hill LLP, in the amount of $2,488.50.

RULING: The motion is granted as set forth below.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On 12/15/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for: (1) Violation of Civil Code 1793.2(d); (2) Violation of Civil Code 1793.2(b); (3) Violation of Civil Code 1793.2(a)(3);

(4) Breach of Express Written Warranty; (5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability and (6) Violation of Tanner Consumer Warranty Protection Act. On 1/17/24, Defendant answered the complaint.

On 1/22/24, Plaintiff propounded written discovery on Defendant, including Form Interrogatories, Set 1, and Special Interrogatories, Set 1. (Katz Decl., Ex.1). Despite Plaintiff granting Defendant’s request for an extension of time to respond until 3/25/24, on 2/26/24, Defendant served unverified responses to the interrogatories. (Id., Ex.2). Plaintiff contends that many of the responses consist mostly of boilerplate objections and deficient responses. After repeated requests, on 3/21/24, Defendant served verifications for the discovery responses. (Id., Ex.3-5).

On 4/2/24, Plaintiff began meet and confer efforts regarding the subject discovery responses; however, Defendant failed to respond. (Id., Ex.6-8). Therefore, on 5/6/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant FCA US, LLC to provide verified further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set 1, number 12.1 and Special Interrogatories, Set 1, numbers 5, 7-9, 14-17, and 27-28. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Clark Hill LLP, in the amount of $2,488.50. The motion was originally scheduled for hearing on 12/26/24 but was rescheduled by the Court to 1/27/25. However, any opposition and reply were due pursuant to the original 12/24/24 hearing date. (See 11/27/24 Notice of Continuance).

Defendant has not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion.

ANALYSIS

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.”

A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories if it deems: (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under CCP 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate and/or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. See CCP 2030.300(a).

Here, the subject interrogatories seek information to verify Defendant’s representations and defenses in this action.

Defendant’s responses to the subject interrogatories are evasive, non-responsive and/or include meritless objections.

The interrogatories seek information relevant to this action and are tailored to the defects in the Vehicle and the Vehicle itself. To prove Plaintiff’s claim under the Song-Beverly Act, Plaintiff must establish, among other things, that the Vehicle contained a defect, covered by Defendant’s warranty, which substantially impaired its use, value, or safety and which Defendant was unable to repair after a reasonable number of attempts. See Civil Code 1790, et seq.; CACI No. 3201.

The subject interrogatories seek information relevant to Plaintiff’s claims because it would tend to show whether a widespread defect or nonconformity, of the same type that Plaintiff experienced, exists in these types of vehicles. The information may also assist in refuting Defendant’s affirmative defenses which claim that Plaintiff and/or others misused or abused the Vehicle or engaged in unauthorized or unreasonable use which caused the problems with the Vehicle. If a substantial number of other owners of the same type of vehicle experienced the same defects and nonconformities, such information would tend to show that the defects claimed in Plaintiff’s Vehicle were not caused by misuse, abuse, or unreasonable use. Further, any willful violations of the Act would entitle Plaintiff to recover civil penalties.

Defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatory 12.1 and Special Interrogatory 5 regarding witness information are deficient as the records referred to in the responses do not provide all of the information requested in the interrogatories.

Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the subject interrogatories are not vague, ambiguous, compound or uncertain. The questions are reasonably particularized and relate to specific allegations and facts in this case.

Defendant has also failed to meet its burden of establishing that any of the subject interrogatories are overly broad and/or unduly burdensome or harassing.

Defendant has also failed to support its objections based on attorney work-product and/or attorney-client privilege. The subject discovery is interrogatories, not document requests.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately defined the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” such that Defendant’s objections based on the use of those terms in the subject interrogatories is without merit. To the extent there was any confusion with regard to these terms, Defendant could have responded to the extent possible or pursuant to the limitations Plaintiff offered during the meet and confer process, which Defendant seemingly ignored.

Plaintiff entitled to an award of sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Clark Hill LLP, in the amount of $1,169.25 (2.1 hours to prepare motion multiplied by $525/hour = $1,102.50 + $60.00 filing fee + $6.75 costs for filing). CCP 2023.030(a); CCP 203.300(d). The Court finds that the time to prepare for and appear at the hearing were adequately compensated in the accompanying motion regarding documents requests.

CONCLUSION

Defendant FCA US, LLC is ordered to provide further, verified responses to Plaintiff Jesus Branlin Orozco Fuentes’ Form Interrogatories, Set 1, number 12.1, and Special Interrogatories, Set 1, numbers 5, 7-9, 14-17, and 27-28, within 30 days.

Sanctions are imposed against Defendant FCA US, LLC and its counsel of record, Clark Hill LLP, in the amount of $1,169.25 payable within 30 days.

Plaintiff’s counsel is warned that in the future separate motions are required for motions to compel further responses regarding Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories. The Court allowed the combined motion to proceed this time because only one Form Interrogatory was at issue.