Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV02041, Date: 2025-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV02041    Hearing Date: May 6, 2025    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 5/6/25                                                         TRIAL DATE: 8/10/26

Case 24CHCV02041

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Special Interrogatories, Set 1)

(Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1)

Motions filed on 11/15/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jesus Torres and Martha Heras

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant FCA US LLC

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: Orders compelling Defendant FCA US LLC to provide further responses to (1) Special Interrogatories, Set 1, numbers 45-48, and (2) Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1, numbers 25-26, and imposing sanctions of $2,320.00 (Interrogatories) and $2,340.00 (RPDs).

RULING:

The motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is granted in part.

The motion to compel further responses to requests for production is denied as moot.

Sanctions are imposed in the amount of $4,660.00, payable by Defendant to Plaintiffs and/or their counsel within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiffs Jesus Torres and Martha Heras (“Plaintiffs”) filed this lemon law action against defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA”) on May 31, 2024, asserting a single claim for violation of the Song-Beverly Act arising from Plaintiffs purchase of a 2017 Jeep Cherokee (“the Vehicle”).

On November 15, 2024, Plaintiffs moved to compel FCA to further respond to Plaintiffs’ first sets of Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production. On April 23, 2025, FCA filed its opposition, and on April 29, 2025, Plaintiffs replied.

Disputed Discovery

Plaintiffs seek further responses to their Special Interrogatories Nos. 45-48 and Requests for Production Nos. 25-26, which read as follows:

FCA responded to this discovery entirely with objections.

In its opposition, FCA contends it supplemented its responses after Plaintiffs filed their motion, so the substance of Plaintiffs’ motions is moot. FCA also contends it should not be subject to sanctions because Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently meet and confer prior to filing their motions.

FCA’s supplements promise information limited to vehicles of the same make, year, and model as Plaintiffs’. To the extent Plaintiffs seek R/1000 data in their Interrogatories, FCA responds it does not collect such data, but will produce other relevant documents from which similar information might be derived.

In reply, Plaintiffs argue the supplement to FCA’s interrogatory responses remains insufficient because FCA has not produced the documents it identified. To the extent FCA has not produced the documents identified, it is ordered to do so, as to vehicles of the same make, year, and model, as indicated in its supplement.

For the Requests for Production, Plaintiffs do not argue the responses are insufficient in their Reply. The Court takes this to mean the motion is moot.

Sanctions

Plaintiffs maintain they are entitled to sanctions.

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration attesting to meeting-and-conference efforts acknowledges that FCA requested more time to meet and confer via email on October 22, 2024. (Lopez Decl., Exh. D.) Plaintiffs had initiated meeting and conference less than three weeks earlier, on October 2, 2024. (Id., ¶ 5 and Exh. C.) Upon filing his declaration on November 15, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel claimed: “It is clear that FCA does not intend to engage in further meet and confer efforts or provide further responses.” (Id., ¶ 8.) On initial impression, the Court finds this suspicion unfounded.

However, the Court notes that FCA did not supplement its responses until April 23, 2024, the due date for its opposition and the last date it could do so and still hope to avoid sanctions. FCA’s undue delay in responding after Plaintiffs filed what FCA concedes is a meritorious motion demonstrates Plaintiffs’ counsel’s intuition was correct.

FCA’s conduct after Plaintiffs’ filed their motions defeats its argument that it would have supplemented its responses without motion practice, which its sole basis to avoid sanctions.

FCA’s initially insufficient responses were not substantially justified, and no other circumstances make imposition of a sanction unjust.

Plaintiffs’ counsel requests reasonable sanctions of $2,320.00 and $2,340.00 in connect with each motion, respectively. The Court grants the sanctions in full, for a total award of $4,660.00.