Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 20STCV06417, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV06417    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Artur Roushanian’s unopposed Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted in part and denied in part. Code-compliant production is to be completed within 10 days.

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions are denied.

          Plaintiff Artur Roushanian (“Roushanian”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed for an order compelling Defendant BMW of North America (“BMWNA”) (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”).  (Notice of Motion, pgs. 2, 4; C.C.P. §§2023.210 et seq., 2030.290 et seq., 2031.010 et seq., 2031.300 et seq.)  Plaintiff further requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,691.65 ordered against Defendant and Defense Counsel jointly and severally.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)

Background

On April 23, 2020, Plaintiff propounded a first set of RFPs, which Defendants did not answer.  Plaintiff propounded second and third sets of RFPs, to which Defendant objected.  On August 1, 2022, Plaintiff propounded a fourth set of RFPs on Defendant.  (Decl. of Davoodi ¶4, Exh. A.)  The requests sought, among other things, information regarding Plaintiff’s vehicle (“Subject Vehicle”), why Defendant believed the Technical Service Bulletin (“TSB”) confirming an engine defect was not applicable, what investigations Defendant performed to confirm the vehicle was tuned, and how Defendant confirmed the Subject Vehicle was not to be repaired under warranty.  Plaintiff was able to obtain the documents sought in the RFP by other means but was unable to obtain information regarding Defendant’s internal investigations and how it allegedly confirmed the Subject Vehicle was not “modified” or “tuned.”  Plaintiff propounded a second set of RFPs requesting sixteen documents related to Defendant’s investigations and how Defendant confirmed the Subject Vehicle was allegedly “tuned.”  (Decl. of Davoodi ¶5.)  To date, Defendant has not provided verified, Code-compliant responses and responsive documents to Plaintiff’s RFP Nos. 138-153.  (Decl. of Davoodi ¶¶8-10, Exh. B.)

          Plaintiff filed the instant motion on September 29, 2022.  As of the date of this hearing, Defendant has not filed an opposition, nor did Plaintiff file a notice of non-opposition. 

Meet and Confer

          Motions to compel further responses must always be accompanied by meet-and confer-declarations per C.C.P. §2016.040 demonstrating a “reasonable and good faith attempt of an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (C.C.P. §§2030.300(b), 2031.310(b)(2).)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares parties engaged in fourteen rounds of meet and confer efforts, which failed to resolve parties’ dispute.  (Decl. of Davoodi ¶9.)

          Motion to Compel Further

Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.  While the Court’s ruling refers to the number of the discovery request at issue, this reference does not indicate that the request is granted in full; rather, the request is granted to the extent the set forth in the ruling.  Similarly, the non-inclusion of a reference to a request number does not indicate a denial of that request if the ruling provides for production subject to the request.  The motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 

1.    Defendant shall produce all documents in their possession, custody or control referring to the applicability of its publication of SI B11 15 18 to the Subject Vehicle.  (See RFP Nos. 139, 140.)

2.    Defendant shall produce all documents in their possession, custody or control referring to Subject Vehicle being tuned and the DME tuning of the Subject Vehicle.  (See RFP Nos. 143, 147, 150, 151.)

3.    Defendant shall produce its policy or procedure manual regarding the OBII-D fault code or other document explaining the OBII-D fault code in their possession, custody or control.  (See RFP No. 152.)

4.    All other requests for further production are denied.

Insofar as Defendant is claiming privilege, Defendant is ordered to produce a privilege log describing with particularity the document, set forth the particular privilege invoked, and provide sufficient factual information for Plaintiff to evaluate the merits of that claim.  (C.C.P. §2031.240.)

Defendant shall provide supplemental responses in compliance with this order within 10 days.  

Sanctions

Given the mixed ruling, the request for sanctions is denied.

Dated:  March_____, 2023

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court