Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 22STCV01480 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV01480, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One)

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Defendant’s Compliance with Providing Supplemental Responses and Documents to Plaintiff’s Request for Production (Set One)

On January 13, 2022, Plaintiff Virgil Haines filed his Complaint against Defendant General Motors LLC on causes of action of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) (“Motion to Compel Further Responses”). Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Separate Statement; and (2) Declaration of Pouyan Bohloul.

Also on August 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel Defendant’s Compliance with Providing Supplemental Responses and Documents to Plaintiff’s Request for Production (Set One) (“Motion to Compel Supplemental Production”). Plaintiff concurrently filed Declaration of Pouyan Bohloul.

On October 4, 2022, in regard to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses, Defendant filed: (1) Separate Statement; and (2) Declaration of Arash Yaraghchian.

On October 5, 2022, in regard to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Supplemental Production, Defendant filed: (1) Memorandum of Points and Authorities; (2) Separate Statement; and (3) Declaration of Arash Yaraghchian.

On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed Replies to each of the Motions. Plaintiff concurrently filed Evidentiary Objections and a Declaration in regard to each Reply.

Plaintiff filed Evidentiary Objections to the Declarations of Arash Yaraghchian that Defendant filed in support of its Motions. The Declarations are identical, and the Evidentiary Objections are also identical. The following are the Court’s rulings as to both sets of Evidentiary Objections:

Objection
1		OVERRULED
2		OVERRULED
3		OVERRULED
4		OVERRULED
5		OVERRULED
6	SUSTAINED
7	SUSTAINED
8	SUSTAINED
9	SUSTAINED
10	SUSTAINED
11	SUSTAINED
12	SUSTAINED
13	SUSTAINED
14		OVERRULED

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210(a) provides that “[t]he party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

A motion to compel further responses to form or specially prepared interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Motions to compel further responses must always be accompanied by a meet-and confer-declaration (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2016.040) demonstrating a “reasonable and good faith attempt an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Id., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b), 2031.310, subd. (b)(2), 2033.290, subd. (b).) They must also be accompanied by a separate statement containing the requests and the responses, verbatim, as well as reasons why a further response is warranted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (a).) The separate statement must also be complete in itself; no extrinsic materials may be incorporated by reference. (Id., rule 3.1345, subd. (c).)

· SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: IDENTIFY all PERSONS who performed warranty repairs upon the SUBJECT VEHICLE

· SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20: IDENTIFY all PERSONS who inspected the SUBJECT VEHICLE during the RELEVANT PERIOD.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has provided unverified, deficient responses to the special interrogatories propounded. (Motion to Compel Further Responses, p. 4:9–10.)

Defendant argues: (1) that there is nothing to compel because it has already provided the names of the individuals at issue; (2) that “[t]o the extent Plaintiffs want additional information, they may seek it directly from the dealerships, as the individuals who repaired [the car at issue] are not [Defendant’s] employees; they are employees of the non-party dealerships”; (3) that Defendant “has provided plaintiff all the information it has in its possession”; and (4) that Plaintiff’s Motion is simply about “form over substance.” (Defendant’s Separate Statement to Motion to Compel Further Responses, pp. 1:24 – 27, 2:1–3, 3:19–22.)

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not provided the names of the service technicians who worked on the car at issue in this case, despite telling Plaintiff that it would do so during the IDC. (Reply to Motion to Compel Further Responses, p. 2:7–13.) Plaintiff alleges that he “presented the Vehicle to Defendant for repair on four (4) separate occasions, and Defendant’s service technicians attempted to repair the defects each time. [Citation] Nevertheless, Defendant’s responses do not contain the name of service technicians.” (Id. at p. 3:22–26.) Plaintiff argues that “[t]he repair orders are requested from the Defendant’s authorized dealership, and the technician’s [sic] identities can also be requested from the dealership.” (Id. at p. 4:6–8.)

Defendant’s supplemental responses to Special Interrogatories 14 and 20 are identical:

Subject to and based upon documents in GM’s possession, custody and control, GM identifies the following: Service Advisor Hugo Carranza (#960), and Technicians #511, #578, and #999 (names unknown) at Three-Way Chevrolet-Cadillac, 4501 Wible Road, Bakersfield, California, 93313- 2639, (661) 283-3300

(Defendant’s Separate Statement to Motion to Compel Further Responses, pp. 1:17–21, 5:1–6.)

Plaintiff correctly notes that Defendant has not provided the name of the three technicians (numbers 511, 578, and 999) who work at the dealership at issue who have serviced Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant response is that the answer is “based upon documents in GM’s possession, custody and control.”

Defendant’s supplemental response is insufficient. “Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonable available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) “If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (b).) “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).) Defendant has not stated that it does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to the interrogatories, nor is there any indication that Defendant has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information (i.e., the names of the individuals who worked on Plaintiff’s vehicle) by inquiring with the dealership. The dealership, which has a contractual relationship with Defendant, is not equally available to Plaintiff, and it is Defendant’s obligation to obtain the requested discovery so that it may answer the interrogatories “to the extent possible.”

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses. Defendant shall have 14 days to provide further supplemental answers to Special Interrogatories 14 and 20.

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1).) “To establish ‘good cause,’ the burden is on the moving party to show both: [¶] Relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and [¶] Specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial.) [Citations.] [¶] The fact that there is no alternative source for the information sought is an important factor in establishing ‘good cause’ for inspection. But it is not essential in every case.” (Edmon & Karnow, California Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 8:1495.6.) “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in

evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

“If ‘good cause’ is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure (the same as on motions to compel answers to interrogatories or deposition questions).” (Edmon & Karnow, supra, at ¶ 8:1496.)

A threshold issue here is whether there was a supplemental production of documents.

Plaintiff argues that “[d]espite Defendant’s promise to provide supplemental responses and produce additional documents during the June 9, 2022, IDC hearing, Defendant has repeatedly failed to provide a supplemental response, a protective order for Plaintiff’s review and, produce a single page of additional documents.” (Motion to Compel Supplemental Production, p. 1:14–17, punctuation unchanged.) The Declaration of Plaintiff’s Counsel is that the parties attended the IDC on June 9, 2022 but that there have not been supplemental responses filed since. Plaintiff did not file a separate statement with this motion.

Defendant claims that on July 13, 2022 it supplemented its responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production number 5, 7, 10, 11, 15–17, 20, 22–26, 28, 29, and 32–68. (Memorandum of Points and Authorities to Opposition to Motion to Compel Supplemental Production, p. 2:22–23. Defendant’s Counsel avers to the same. (Yaraghchian Decl., ¶ 7.) Defendant did file a separate statement with its Opposition.

Plaintiff reiterates in Reply that it has not received the supplemental production. (Reply to Motion to Compel Supplemental Production, p. 1:16–19.)

The Court does not have the facts before it to explain why Defendant states that it has submitted a supplemental production but that Plaintiff has not received it. However, since Plaintiff did not file a separate statement with the motion, the Court procedurally cannot reach the merits.

However, the Court notes that Defendant does not appear to have an objection to providing the supplemental production requested. Therefore, the Court suggest that Defendant re-submit the supplemental production so that Plaintiff receives it.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses. Defendant shall have 14 days to provide further supplemental answers to Special Interrogatories 14 and 20.