Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00598, Date: 2024-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CMCV00598    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: A

22CMCV00598 Lourdes Avalos Paz, et al. v. Kia America, Inc.

Tuesday, January 23, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S COMPLIANCE AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS CORRESPONDING TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

      The complaint alleges that Defendant issued a written express warranty to Plaintiffs in connection with Plaintiffs’ lease of a 2022 Kia Nero-EV. The vehicle developed electrical and other defects. Defendant allegedly failed to comply with its statutory obligations to replace the vehicle or pay restitution after failing to repair the defects, all in violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”).

      Plaintiffs argue that on November 16, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant to serve verified supplemental responses to the request for production of documents. Defendant did not comply. Plaintiffs have attempted to meet and confer with Defendant by telephone and email and by letter dated December 1, 2023. Defendant failed to comply with the Court’s order.

      In opposition, Defendant states it fully intends to comply with the Court’s order but has been delayed due to circumstances beyond Defendant’s control. Plaintiffs have requested a broad scope of documents which will take extensive time to search for and compile.  Defendant asserts there is good cause for the Court to extend the production date to February 23, 2024.

      In reply, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s opposition is not supported by a declaration from anyone within Kia. Defendant was ordered to produce documents two months ago.

      If a party fails to obey an order compelling further response, “the court may make those orders that are just, … .” (Code Civ. Code, §. Proc., § 2031.310 subd. (1).) In opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to the document request, Defendant argued without any evidence that Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied because the requests were unduly burdensome. (Opp. filed 11/2/23.)

      Defendant repeats the same argument in opposition to Plaintiffs’ current motion without a declaration from a person with personal knowledge of the purported burden of conducting a search of documents. Defendant has not shown good cause to extend the time to comply for one more month given two months have passed since the Court ordered Defendant to provide further responses and production.

      Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to comply with the Court’s November 16, 2023, order within five days. As Plaintiffs did not request imposition of sanctions, none is awarded.