Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV17474, Date: 2022-12-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17474    Hearing Date: December 23, 2022    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production Set One and for Monetary Sanctions Pursuant to C.C.P. Section 2031.320(b) Against Defendant and its Counsel in the Amount of $1,791.65

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Raul Alberto Vargas Zuniga

Resp. Party:    Defendant FCA US LLC

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On May 26, 2022, Plaintiff Raul Alberto Vargas Zuniga filed his Complaint against FCA US LLC on causes of action involving the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

On July 21, 2022, Defendant filed its Answer.

On November 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents Set One and for Monetary Sanctions Pursuant to C.C.P. Section 2031.320(b) Against Defendant and its Counsel in the Amount of $1,791.65. Plaintiff concurrently filed its Separate Statement.

On December 13, 2022, Defendant filed its Opposition. Defendant concurrently filed its Separate Statement.

On December 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Reply. (The Reply was not timely filed as it was filed after business hours on December 19, 2022 when it was due on December 16, 2022.)

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

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, subd. (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. Super. Ct. (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.)

II.        Discussion

A.      Requests for Production of Documents

Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Defendant to provide further responses to the following Requests for Production:

Request for Production No. 13:

All DOCUMENTS IDENTIFYTNG [sic] repurchases made by YOU of the 2018 Jeep Compass, vehicles and allegedly containing any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU for repair. (For purposes of this request, the term “IDENTIFYING” seeks documents establishing the name of the complaining PERSON, the complaints made by such PERSON(S), the names of any lawyers involved as well as case names, court numbers, and locations and whether such repurchase was voluntary or pursuant to a court order.)

Request for Production No. 14:

All DOCUMENTS evidencing, relating, or referring to complaints by owners of 2018 Jeep Compass, vehicle regarding any of the conditions, defects, or conformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.

Request for Production No. 15:

All surveys, reports, summaries, or other DOCUMENTS in which owners of the 2018 Jeep Compass, vehicle have reported to YOU problems with any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair. (For example, YOU survey YOUR new car buyers. If any of the survey responses refer to the above-listed conditions, defects, or nonconformities, Plaintiff’s request these DOCUMENTS be produced.)

Request for Production No. 16:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, relate, or refer to the numbers of owners of the 2018 Jeep Compass, vehicle who have complained of any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.

Request for Production No. 34:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to technical service bulletins which have been issued for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

Request for Production No. 35:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to recalls which have been issued for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

B.      Analysis

Plaintiff argues that Defendant should be ordered to provide verified responses to the above-listed requests for production of documents. (Motion, p. 4:5–6.)

Defendant opposes the Motion, arguing: (1) that Plaintiff failed to properly meet and confer; (2) that Defendant has provided code-compliant responses; and (3) that Plaintiff failed to establish good cause for the Court to grant the Motion. (Opposition, pp. 2:15–16, 3:2, 3:23.)

As noted above, Plaintiff’s Reply is untimely; nonetheless, the Court will consider the Reply. Among other things, Plaintiff argues in its Reply: (1) that Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter; (2) that Defendant has not produced the documents requested; and (3) that the requests are relevant and appropriately tailored. (Reply, pp. 2:10–16, 3:8–16, 3:16–17.)

 First, many of the Requests for Production of Documents are so poorly drafted as to nearly incomprehensible.  Second, all of the Requests for Production of Documents are overbroad.  For example, Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 14, 16, 34 and 35 all request “All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, relate, or refer to . . . .”  This is virtually unlimited; after all, virtually anything “relates” to something else.  Request for Production of Documents No. 13 requests “All DOCUMENTS IDENTIFYTNG [sic] repurchases. . . .; this too is overbroad. And Request for Production of Documents No. 15 requests “All surveys, reports, summaries, or other DOCUMENTS” showing the same defects as in Plaintiff’s car.

        The Court understands why Plaintiff’s counsel wishes to amass a large data base of all of these documents; however, the desire to amass such a data base is not sufficient.  Although discovery may sometimes be likened to a fishing expedition, “as with a fishing license, the rules of discovery do not allow unrestricted access to all species of information.” (Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1387.)

        The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.

III.     Sanctions

The Court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a deposition, a motion to compel interrogatories, and/or a motion to compel production of documents, unless the Court finds that the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.450, subd. (g)(1), 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

        The Court has denied Plaintiff’s Motion. The Court therefore  DENIES Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions.

        Defendant has not requested sanctions.

IV.       Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.