Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Request for Production of Documents Numbers 28, 34, and 35 ("RFPs") that Plaintiff propounded on Defendant in this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

RFP No. 28 asked for "All DOCUMENTS which describe YOUR rules, policies, or procedures regarding requiring a consumer in California to sign a release agreement as part of a pre-litigation repurchase.”   Defendant objected to this RFP on the grounds, inter alia, of attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine.  That objection was substantially justified.   Defendant's supplement response states that Defendant has conducted a search for documents responsive to RFP No. 28 and will produce its "Dealer Policy Manual" related to the Plaintiff's vehicle that is the subject of this action.  In the Court's view, the supplemental response is appropriate and no further responses are required.    

RFP No. 34 asked for "YOUR template 'goodwill' pre-litigation repurchase letter in California.”  Defendant's objections to this RFP were not substantially justified.   Defendant's supplemental response states that it will produce the letter that Plaintiff asked for in the RFP.  No further responses are required. 

RFP No. 35 asked for “YOUR template pre-litigation repurchase letter(s) for a vehicle being repurchased pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act.”  Defendant's objections to this RFP were not substantially justified.  Defendant's supplemental response states that Defendant has conducted a search for documents responsive to the RFP and will produce the letter that will be produce in response to RFP No. 34.   The Court takes the Defendant's response to mean that that the closest responsive document that it has in its possession is the goodwill letter from RFP No. 34 and that there is nothing else that fits the bill of "template pre-litigation repurchase letter."   If that interpretation of the response is correct, no further response is required. 

Even though the Court has concluded that no further responses are required, that does not moot Plaintiff's motion because Plaintiff is seeking monetary sanctions against Defendant in the form of the attorney's fees and costs of $2,560 that Plaintiff says were incurred in connection with the motion.   One-third of Defendant's objections are substantially justified.  Two-third were not.   The Court is not, however, rewarding Plaintiff two-thirds of the fees it incurred in connection with the motion.  That is because the Court believes that Plaintiff's fee request is somewhat inflated with respect to the time spent on the opening brief and the time spent preparing for and attending the hearing on the motion.  The Court will award Plaintiff half of the sanctions that it is seeking, or $1,280.  The fees shall be paid by Defendant to  Plaintiff within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.