Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV10995, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10995    Hearing Date: November 6, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Blanca Salgado        

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Kia America, Inc.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and for Sanctions

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

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Blanca Salgado (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order (1) compelling defendant Kia America, Inc. (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 1-16, 18, 19-32, 33-36, 37-41, 44, and 45-46, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $2,310.

            As a threshold matter, the court notes that, in its opposition papers, Defendant asserts that it served Plaintiff with supplemental responses to demand numbers 1-16, 19-34, and 44 on May 14, 2024.  (Cleveland Decl., ¶ 13; Cleveland Decl., Ex. C [Supp. Responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1-16, 19-34, and 44].)  In reply, Plaintiff appears to have withdrawn the motion as to Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 1-16, 19-32, and 44 because (1) Plaintiff did not request that the court exercise its discretion to rule on the motion as to Defendant’s supplemental responses to those demands, and (2) Plaintiff’s reply papers do not request an order compelling Defendant’s further responses to those document demands.  (Reply, pp. 1:6-7 [arguing that demand numbers 18, 33-36, 37-41 and 45-46 seek relevant and discoverable information], 5:8-11 [“Plaintiff respectfully requests that Plaintiff’s Motion be granted in full and Defendant be ordered to serve verified supplemental responses to RFPs 18, 33-36, 37-41 and 45-46 without objections and to produce all responsive documents, and to pay sanctions as requested above”].) 

Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff’s motion is moot as to Requests for Production of Documents numbers 1-16, 19-32, and 44, and therefore rules on the merits of Plaintiff’s motion as to numbers 18, 33-41 and 45-46.  The court exercises its discretion to consider Defendant’s supplemental responses to Requests for Production of Documents numbers 33 and 34.  (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 Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 18 and 33-41 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 45, limited to any customer complaints regarding the defects alleged in the Complaint for vehicles purchased in California that are the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle.

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further response to Requests for Production of Documents, number 46 because that demand (1) is overbroad since it calls for the production of documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter in the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (2) is unduly burdensome.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

In light of the circumstances presented, including Defendant’s service of supplemental responses to Plaintiff and the mixed result of the court’s ruling on this motion, the court finds that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust and therefore denies all requests for monetary sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

ORDER

            The court grants in part plaintiff Blanca Salgado’s motion to compel further responses and for sanctions as follows.

            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, the court orders defendant Kia America, Inc. (1) to serve on plaintiff Blanca Salgado further written responses that comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210-2031.250 to plaintiff Blanca Salgado’s Requests for Production of Documents (i) numbers 18 and 33-41 and (ii) number 45, limited to any customer complaints regarding the defects alleged in the Complaint for vehicles purchased in California that are the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle, and (2) to produce to plaintiff Blanca Salgado all documents and things in defendant Kia America, Inc.’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 denies all requests for sanctions.

            The court orders plaintiff Blanca Salgado to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  November 6, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court