Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV09246, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09246    Hearing Date: July 18, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Kenneth T. Leonhardt         

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant FCA US LLC

(1)   Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

(2)   Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

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

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff Kenneth Leonhardt (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order compelling defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 14, 20, 39, and 43.

The court notes that, in its opposition, Defendant has submitted the declaration of its counsel, in which counsel states that Defendant (1) “supplemented its responses [to Special Interrogatories numbers 14 and 20] to include the names and addresses of the service advisors it believed to have performed service on the subject vehicle[,]” and (2) “agreed to produce a corporate representative to testify at deposition regarding the decision whether or not to repurchase the subject vehicle in response to” Special Interrogatories numbers 39 and 43.  (Gregg Decl., ¶¶ 7, 11.)  Although Defendant attached a copy of Defendant’s supplemental responses to those interrogatories, Defendant did not file a proof of service establishing that those responses have been served on Plaintiff.  (Gregg Decl., Ex. B [Supp. Response].)  Moreover, Plaintiff’s reply does not appear to indicate that Plaintiff received the supplemental responses. 

Thus, the court evaluates Plaintiff’s motion based on the responses that Defendant served on September 15, 2023.  (Yakoobian Decl., Ex. O; 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 grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, numbers 14 and 20 because (1) Defendant’s exercise of the option to produce documents under section 2030.230 is unwarranted, and (2) the objections to those interrogatories are without merit.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subds. (a)(2), (a)(3).)

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, numbers 39 and 43 because the objections to those interrogatories are without merit.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(3).)

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Defendant to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, numbers 7, 10, 20, 24, 25, 44-52, 53-55, and 56-65.

In its opposition, Defendant asserts that it has since supplemented its responses to this discovery.  (Gregg Decl., ¶ 8.)  However, although Defendant has filed a copy of “Defendant FCA US LLC’s Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents to Defendant (Set One),” dated March 28, 2024, Defendant did not attach a proof of service establishing that it served the supplemental responses on Plaintiff.  (Gregg Decl., Ex. B, pp. 1-25 [Supp. Responses].)  Moreover, in his reply, Plaintiff asserts that he has not received those supplemental responses.  (Reply, p. 1:17-22 [“Plaintiff is only in possession of Defendant’s initial responses dated September 15, 2023”].)  The court therefore evaluates Plaintiff’s motion based on the responses that Defendant served on September 15, 2023.  (Yakoobian Decl., Ex. N; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 409.)

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further response to Requests for Production of Documents, number 7 because (1) the statement of compliance is incomplete since it does not state that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production, and (2) the objections in the response are without merit.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (a)(1), (a)(3), 2031.220.)

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 10 and 24-25 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 response to Requests for Production of Documents, number 20, limited to the production of documents evidencing policies and procedures regarding the handling of repeat complaints by customers regarding their vehicles.   

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 44-46, 47 (first), 47 (second), 48-52, and 62-65, limited to the requested documents for vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle.

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 53-61 because those demands are overbroad and unduly burdensome.

ORDER

            The court grants plaintiff Kenneth Leonhardt’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories.

            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, the court orders defendant FCA US LLC to serve further, full and complete answers to plaintiff Kenneth Leonhardt’s Special Interrogatories, numbers 14, 20, 39, and 43, which comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210-2030.250, within 20 days of the date of this order.

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

            The court orders defendant FCA US LLC (1) to serve on plaintiff Kenneth Leonhardt further written responses, which comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210-2031.250, to plaintiff Kenneth Leonhardt’s Requests for Production of Documents (i) numbers 7, 10, and 24-25, (ii) number 20, limited to the production of documents evidencing policies and procedures regarding the handling of repeat complaints by customers regarding their vehicles, and (iii) numbers 44-46, 47 (first), 47 (second), 48-52, and 62-65, limited to the requested documents for vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle, and (2) to produce to plaintiff Kenneth Leonhardt all documents and things in defendant FCA US LLC’s possession, custody, or control which are responsive to those requests (and limited as set forth above), within 20 days of the date of this order.

            The court orders plaintiff Kenneth Leonhardt to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  July 18, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court