Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV45824, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV45824    Hearing Date: February 22, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Matthew Guerra      

RESPONDING PARTY:        Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court grants defendant Nissan North America, Inc.’s request for judicial notice.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The court rules on defendant Nissan North America, Inc.’s evidentiary objections, filed on December 7, 2023, as follows:

Objections Nos. 1-4 are overruled.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Matthew Guerra (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order compelling defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, numbers 1, 8, 9, 17-20, 24-26, 41, 43, and 54-56.

The court notes that, in its opposition, Defendant (1) has presented evidence showing that it served supplemental responses to Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 1, 8, 9, 41, 43, 54, and 55 on December 4, 2023, and (2) has asserted that it produced to Plaintiff approximately 700 pages of responsive documents on that date.  (Salas Decl., ¶ 7; Salas Decl., Ex. 3 [Def. Supp. Responses served December 4, 2023].)  The court exercises its discretion to review the supplemental responses to those demands in ruling on this motion.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409 [“Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is a matter best determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the circumstances of the case”].)

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 1, 8, 9, 41, and 43 because the supplemental responses to those demands include statements of compliance that are complete.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1); Salas Decl., Ex. 3, pp. 2:24-26, 4:17-26, 6:20-7:14, 8:6-10, 9:3-11.)

            The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 17 and 56 because the objections in the responses to those demands are without merit.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(3).)

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 18-19 and 24-26, limited to documents constituting any internal analysis or investigation regarding defects alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint in vehicles for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle.  This includes Recall Notices and Technical Service Bulletins.  Defendant is not required to do a search of or to produce emails.

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further response to Requests for Production of Documents, number 20, limited to documents constituting customer complaints relating to defects alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle.

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 54-55, because (1) the statements of compliance in the supplemental responses to those demands are incomplete, and (2) the objections in the responses to those demands are without merit.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1), (a)(3); Salas Decl., Ex. 3, pp. 10:2-16, 11:18-23.)  

ORDER

            The court grants in part plaintiff Matthew Guerra’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents as follows.

            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, the court orders defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (1) to serve on plaintiff Matthew Guerra further written responses to plaintiff Matthew Guerra’s Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 17, 18-20, 24-26, and 54-56, and (2) to produce to plaintiff Matthew Guerra (i) all documents and things in defendant Nissan North America, Inc.’s possession, custody, or control which are responsive to Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 17 and 54-56, (ii) documents constituting any internal analysis or investigation regarding defects alleged in plaintiff Matthew Guerra’s Complaint in vehicles for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle, including Recall Notices and Technical Service Bulletins but excluding emails, that are in defendant Nissan North America, Inc.’s possession, custody, or control, in response to Requests for Production of Documents numbers 18-19 and 24-26, and (iii) documents constituting customer complaints relating to defects alleged in plaintiff Matthew Guerra’s Complaint in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle, that are in defendant Nissan North America, Inc.’s possession, custody, or control, in response to Requests for Production of Documents, number 20, within 20 days of the date of this order.

The court orders plaintiff Matthew Guerra to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  February 22, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court