Judge: Nick A. Dourbetas, Case: 22-01278394, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Compel Production
2. Case Management Conference

Plaintiffs Brien Cook and Holly Cook (“Plaintiffs”) seek an order to strike Defendant FCA US, LLC’s ("Defendant" or "FCA") objections and compel further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFP”), Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 16, 17, 19-27, 29-31, 36, 41-44, 47-49, 54, 59-63, 67-72, 90, 96, 100, 102, 104-108, 110, 111, 114, 118, 121 (the "Requests" or “RFPs") and Request for Monetary Sanctions from Defendant FCA.

This Motion was filed on March 7, 2023. Defendant served Supplemental Responses to the RFPs as to Request Nos. 19-24, 25 (sic), 29, 31-34, 36, 37, 41-44, 47, 49-52, 54, 55, 59-64, 66, 104, 106-108, 110, 114, 118 (sic), 120 (sic). As such, the Motion is MOOT as to Requests.

The Motion, however, is still at issue with respect to Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 17, 25, 27, 30, 48, 67-72, 90, 96, 100, 102.

The Motion is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 1, 2, 6, 17, 90, 96, and 100 as Defendant’s reply fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210, 2031.220, and 2031.230. Defendant states it will “comply in full” with the request but then identifies the documents it will be producing and includes further statements as to what FCA did or did not do with respect to the Vehicle. Defendant is ORDERED to provide a response that complies with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210, 2031.220, and 2031.230.

The Motion is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 25, 27, 30, 48, and 67-72. Defendant objected on the grounds these requests are vague, ambiguous, misleading, nonsensical and did not comply with C.C.P. section 2031.030(c)(1). These requests can be answered as originally set forth as they are not vague, ambiguous, or nonsensical.

Further, Defendant’s response to the separate statement that there is no reason to order any further responses because it “agreed to and did supplement dozens of requests related to” Plaintiffs’ defined defect definitions (see both below and above) where it conducted diligent and reasonable searches for responsive documents using Plaintiffs’ own search terms and has complied in full” is not sufficient. Defendant admits it did not specifically supplement this response. If Defendant has already produced the requested documents, it must so state in an amended response.

Defendant shall serve further supplemental responses within the next 21 days.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $3,960.00, based on 8 hours, to be paid within the next 30-days. (C.C.P. section 2031.310(h).)

*** CMC continued to October 6, 2023 at 9:30 AM. ***

Moving party shall give notice.