Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV17474, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 22STCV17474    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    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 without prejudice.

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.)

On December 21, pursuant to the request of the moving party, the Hearing on the Motion was continued to March 14, 2023.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

On receipt of a response to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and/or demand requests, the propounding and/or demanding party “may move for an order compelling further response” if: (1) the response is evasive or incomplete; (2) the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) the objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a).)¿¿¿¿ 

The court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further interrogatories and/or a motion to compel further 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., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)¿ 

II.        Discussion

This Court’s Trial Orders require that counsel attend an informal discovery conference before any discovery motion will be heard in a Lemon Law case.  (See Court’s Trial Orders, § VIII.)

The parties have not done so.

III.     Conclusion

The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel because the parties have not participated in an Informal Discovery Conference.