MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Gabriel L. Angulo and Gabriel Angulo Jr. 

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant FCA US LLC 

Motion to Compel Further Response to Special Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions 

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

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiffs Gabriel L. Angulo and Gabriel Angulo Jr. (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action on April 5, 2023, alleging three causes of action under the Song-Beverly Act. These causes of action arise out of the warranty obligations of Defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA” or “Defendant”) in connection with a 2021 RAM 1500 that Plaintiffs purchased (the “Subject Vehicle”), which was manufactured by FCA and for which FCA issued a written warranty. Plaintiffs allege that defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the express warranty period that FCA and Defendant San Fernando Motor Company, an FCA-authorized repair facility, were unable to adequately repair.  

On November 6, 2023, Plaintiffs sent Defendant their first set of interrogatories. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A.) The interrogatories at issue for this motion are interrogatories Nos. 45-48, which seek information regarding repair rates for other 2021 RAM 1500 regarding the same problems that Plaintiffs experienced. (Ibid.) On December 8, 2023, FCA served unverified responses to Plaintiffs’ requests. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. B.) FCA later served verifications on December 21, 2023. (Ibid.) 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Motions to compel further responses must always be accompanied by a meet-and confer-declaration (per CCP § 2016.040) demonstrating a “reasonable and good faith attempt an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  (Id., §§ 2030.300(b), 2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b).)  They must also be accompanied by a separate statement containing the requests and the responses, verbatim, as well as reasons why a further response is warranted.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) 

A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).) It is not necessary for the motion to show that the material sought will be admissible in evidence. “Good cause” may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (See Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586-588; see also Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 [noting a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence].) 

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (CCP § 2030.300(a).)  The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.  (CCP § 2030.300(d).)   

DISCUSSION 

On January 16, 2024, Plaintiffs initiated the meet and confer process by sending a letter to FCA that specified the deficiencies in FCA’s responses. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. C.) Plaintiffs asked FCA that it provide a response to the letter by January 30, 2024 and asked that the parties agree to extend the motion to compel deadline to February 13, 2024. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 6; Ex. D.) On January 30, 2024, FCA provided a response to Plaintiffs’ letter and indicated that it was standing by its objections to requests 45-46. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 7; Ex. E.) 

FCA argues that Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer in good faith regarding FCA’s objections to requests 45-46, and that its singular pro forma meet and confer letter is insufficient. Even though FCA timely responded to that letter, Plaintiffs refused to further meet and confer and filed this instant motion instead.   

Interrogatories 45-48 seek repair rates for 2021 RAM 1500 vehicles including the top five symptoms and components replaced.  Plaintiffs assert that the information is relevant because it would tend to show whether a widespread defect or nonconformity – of the same type that Plaintiffs experience--exists in these types of vehicles. Plaintiffs argue that the information sought would tend to show whether a widespread defect or nonconformity exists in these types of vehicles and argues the information is relevant to (1) refute FCA’s affirmative defenses of misuse, and (2) determine whether FCA knew about the defects and willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act, subjecting itself to a civil penalty.