Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV01043, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV01043    Hearing Date: January 10, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff Henry Nunez’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Respondent: Defendant FCA US LLC

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Henry Nunez’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents is deemed a Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents and DENIED AS MOOT.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action. On July 14, 2021, Plaintiff Henry Nunez purchased a 2020 Jeep Wrangler manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant FCA US LLC. In connection with the purchase the vehicle, Plaintiff received an express written warranty from Defendant in which Defendant undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the vehicle or to provide compensation if there is a failure in utility or performance for a specified time. During the warranty period, Plaintiff alleges the vehicle developed defects including a defective engine and defective body system.  

On December 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant and Does 1-50, alleging (1)¿violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d); (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b); (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3); (4) breach of express written warranty; and (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set one. On October 7, Plaintiff withdrew the motion.

On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present motion. A hearing is set for January 10, 2023. A final status conference is also set for November 14 and a jury trial is set for November 28.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide additional responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents number 17, 19, and 20.

Legal Standard

A party may file a motion compelling further production if it deems the responses are inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the responses is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.) The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).) To prevail, the moving party must first offer specific facts demonstrating “good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

The court must impose sanctions on a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further unless the party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make imposing a sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) However, “absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as the result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (j)(1).) 

Discussion

On May 5, 2022, Plaintiff propounded Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on Defendant. (Fennell Decl., ¶ 13.) On July 6, Defendant responded with unverified responses. (Fennell Decl., ¶ 14.) On July 12, Defendant provided verified responses. (Fennell Decl., ¶ 15.) On October 6, Defendant provided verified supplemental responses and indicated it would comply in full with requests numbered 17, 19, and 20. (Fennell Decl., ¶ 16.) On October 7, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant to obtain a timeframe for when those responses would be provided. (Fennell Decl., ¶ 19.) When Defendant did not provide supplemental responses to RFP 17, 19, and 20, Plaintiff submitted meet and confer letters in November 15 and November 22, but heard no response from Defendant. (Fennell Decl., ¶ 20-21.)  

On December 13, 2022, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel with a link to supplemental document production. (Hanson Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.)

Accordingly, the court deems MOOT Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses.