Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 21STCV45779, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45779    Hearing Date: January 27, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant FCA US LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff is to provide supplemental responses within 15 days.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

          Defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA”) (“Defendant”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Roberta Guzman (“Guzman”) (“Plaintiff”) to provide further responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One).  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §2031.310.)  In addition, Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the sum of $1,750.00.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.010, 2023.030.)  In opposition, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendant in the sum of $4,950.  (Opposition, pg. 1; C.C.P. §2031.300(c).)

          Background

On July 17, 2020, Plaintiff leased a 2020 Jeep Wrangler (“Subject Vehicle”).  Plaintiff alleged that the vehicle was delivered to her with serious defects and nonconformities to the warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to electrical, engine, and transmission system defects.  (Complaint ¶¶8, 10.)  On December 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed her complaint in the instant action against Defendant alleging three causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act- Breach of Express Warranty; (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act- Breach of Implied Warranty; and (3) Violation of Song-Beverly Act §1793.2.  (See Complaint.)

On August 4, 2022, Defendant served its Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”) Nos. 1-10.  (Decl. of Dao ¶3, Exh. 1.)  On August 26, 2022, Plaintiff served her responses on Defendant that Defendant argues are not code-compliant and are evasive, and includes evasive, meritless, and boilerplate objections.  (Motion, pg. 1; Decl. of Dao ¶4, Exh. 2.)  On October 26, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion.  Plaintiff filed its opposition on January 13, 2023.  Defendant filed its reply on January 20, 2023. 

Meet and Confer

On September 10, 2022, Defendant’s counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff attempting a meet and confer in good faith regarding Plaintiff’s deficient responses; Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s meet and confer letter.  (Decl. of Dao ¶5, Exh. 13.)  On October 7, 2022, and October 12, 2022, Defendant’s counsel attempted to set a telephonic meet and confer via email correspondence to Plaintiff’s Counsel; Plaintiff’s Counsel did not respond.  (Decl. of Dao ¶6, Exh. 4.)  Defendant has demonstrated a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve discovery issues outside of court.  (C.C.P. §§2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2).)

Legal Standard

A motion to compel must “set forth specific facts showing good
cause and justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.  (C.C.P. §2031.310(b)(1).)  Plaintiff has the burden to: (1) demonstrate good cause; and (2) set forth specific facts justifying the discovery of the documents requested. (See Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)  An absence of specific facts relating to each category of materials sought to be produced, or mere generalities offered as justification for production, fails to justify compelling
the production of documents.  (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

Discussion

Plaintiff argues Defendant’s motion is moot because on October 31, 2022, Plaintiff served amended, code-compliant responses to each of Defendant’s requests and responsive documents.  (Opposition, pg. 4; Decl. of Sogoyan ¶21, Exh. 9.)

Defendant argues in reply that Plaintiff’s amended responses remain deficient because they raise (1) boilerplate/meritless objections, and (2) the responses are not Code-Compliant and are not verified.  (Reply, pg. 3.)  However, Plaintiff’s amended responses are verified.  (See Decl. of Sogoyan, Exh. 9 at pg. 17.)

RFP Nos. 1, 8, and 10

RFP Nos. 1, 8, and 10 seek documents that relate to the sale and purchase of the Subject Vehicle, including any lease agreement or sales contract involving the Subject Vehicle.

In her initial response, Plaintiff objected to the RFPs on the basis they are (1) vague, ambiguous, and compound; (2) overly broad; (3) call for a legal conclusion; (4) seek information protected from disclosure by privilege and immunity, including attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine; (5) seeks premature disclosure of expert witness opinion; (6) is an inappropriate settlement demand; (7) seeks legal reasoning and theories of Plaintiff’s contention; and (7) exceeds the scope of the claims and/or defenses in the action and is therefore not relevant, nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (Motion SS, pgs. 2, 52-53, 66-67.)

Plaintiff’s amended response to RFP No. 1 indicates she produced her purchase and/or lease agreement.  (Decl. of Sogoyan, Exh. 9 at pg. 5.)  Plaintiff’s amended response to RFP No. 8 indicates, “After a diligent search, and a reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff cannot comply with this request because the documents sought are not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control.”  (Decl. of Sogoyan, Exh. 9 at pg. 11.) Plaintiff’s amended response to RFP No. 10 indicates:  “Plaintiff will comply with this request to the extent responsive, non-privileged documents are in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, and control, if any. Discovery is still ongoing, and Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement or amend this response should additional information become available.” (Id. at pg. 14.)

Defendant’s request to compel further responses as to RFP Nos. 1, 8, and 10 is granted. Plaintiff’s production of the lease agreement did not include the entire lease agreement, current payoff statement, and the payment history.  (Reply, pg. 4; Decl. of Hanson, Exh. B.)  Plaintiff’s response to RFP No. 8 fails to set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.  (See C.C.P. §2031.230.)   Plaintiff’s response to RFP No. 10 is evasive and includes boilerplate objections.  Defendant’s RFP No. 10 is relevant to Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claim and alleged damages and is therefore “relevant to the subject matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.”  (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546; C.C.P §2017.010.)

RFP Nos. 2, 4, and 5-7

RFP Nos. 2, 4, and 5-7 seek documents that relate to Plaintiff’s ownership and title of the Subject Vehicle, more specifically the requests seek: the current registration of the Subject Vehicle, a copy of the front and back of the title for the Subject Vehicle, a current payoff statement from the landholder for the Subject Vehicle, a current payoff statement from the lienholder for the Subject Vehicle, and a payment history from the lienholder for the Subject Vehicle.

In her initial response, Plaintiff objected to the RFPs on the basis they are (1) vague, ambiguous, and compound; (2) overly broad; (3) call for a legal conclusion; (4) seek information protected from disclosure by privilege and immunity, including attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine; (5) seeks premature disclosure of expert witness opinion; (6) is an inappropriate settlement demand; (7) seeks legal reasoning and theories of Plaintiff’s contention; and (7) exceeds the scope of the claims and/or defenses in the action and is therefore not relevant, nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (Motion SS, pgs. 9, 24, 45.)

Plaintiff’s amended response to RFP No. 2 indicates she produced the current registration of her vehicle.  (Decl. of Hanson, Exh. B.)  Plaintiff’s amended response to RFP Nos. 5, 6, and 7 indicate, “After a diligent search, and a reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff cannot comply with this request because the documents sought are not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control.”  (Decl. of Sogoyan, Exh. 9 at pgs. 8-10.) 

Defendant’s request to compel further responses as to RFP Nos. 5, 6, and 7 is granted.  Defendant’s request to compel further responses as to RFP No. 2 is denied as moot.  Plaintiff’s responses to RFP Nos. 5, 6, and 7 fail to set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.  (See C.C.P. §2031.230.)

RFP No. 3

RFP No. 3 seeks documents relating to any incidental, consequential, or general damages Plaintiff alleges to have incurred.

In her initial response, Plaintiff objected to the RFP on the basis it is (1) vague, ambiguous, and compound; (2) overly broad; (3) call for a legal conclusion; (4) seek information protected from disclosure by privilege and immunity, including attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine; (5) seeks premature disclosure of expert witness opinion; (6) is an inappropriate settlement demand; (7) seeks legal reasoning and theories of Plaintiff’s contention; and (7) exceeds the scope of the claims and/or defenses in the action and is therefore not relevant, nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (Motion SS, pgs. 16-17.)

Defendant’s request to compel further responses as to RFP No. 3 is denied as moot.  Plaintiff’s amended response to RFP No. 3 indicates Plaintiff “will comply with this request to the extent responsive, non-privileged documents are in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, and control.”  (Decl. of Sogoyan, Exh. 9 at pg. 7.)  Plaintiff attached documents that are responsive to Defendant’s request; Defendant’s reply is silent as to Plaintiff’s amended production in response to RFP No. 3.  (Decl. of Hanson, Exh. B.)

Sanctions

          Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

          Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Dated:  January _____, 2023

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court