Judge Sarah J. Heidel, Case Number: 23GDCV00968, Date: 2024-07-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23GDCV00968, Date: 2024-07-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV00968 Hearing Date: July 2, 2024 Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

DELILAH WEITZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey Corporation, GALPIN VOLKSWAGEN, LLC dba GALPIN VOLKSWAGEN, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23GDCV00968

Hearing Date: July 2, 2024

Time: 9:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiff DELILAH WEITZ

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.

The court considered the moving papers, Opposition, and Reply.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Delilah Weitz filed the complaint against defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Galpin Volkswagen, LLC dba Galpin Volkswagen on May 10, 2023. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty against defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.; (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of implied warranty against defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.; and (3) negligent repair against defendant Galpin Volkswagen.

LEGAL STANDARD

With respect to requests for production of documents there are three appropriate responses: (1) a statement that the party will comply with the request; (2) a statement of inability to comply; or (3) an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210(a).)

The requesting party may move for an order compelling further responses to request for production of documents if any of the following apply: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).)

The motion must be filed within 45 days from verified responses, supplemental responses, or a specific later date agreed to in writing (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) Failure to make motion within the specified period constitutes waiver of right to compel a further response. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The time period is mandatory and jurisdictional in the sense that it renders the Court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them. (Id.)

The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(2).) The purpose of the meet and confer requirement is to encourage the parties to make serious effort to work out differences informally and avoid a need for a formal order. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1016.)

Under Rule of Court 3.1345, the movant must submit a separate statement along with the motion to compel further responses. The movant must include specific facts showing good cause justifying further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).)

DISCUSSION

A. Timeliness

Defendant served responses with an unsigned verification to plaintiff’s request for production on December 17, 2023. (Decl. of Phil A. Thomas., ¶ 6.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 subdivision (c), the time limit for bringing a motion to compel further responses runs from the service of a verified response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) Because defendant’s verification was not signed under oath, there is no verification. As such, the 45 day time limit has not begun to run and the motion is timel.

B. Meet and Confer

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(b)(2), the parties are required to meet and confer prior to filing a motion to compel further responses and are required to file a declaration stating facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution.

Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to defendant’s counsel on January 17, 2024, detailing the deficiencies in its responses. (Decl. of Phil A. Thomas, ¶ 8; Exh. C.) Plaintiff’s counsel and defendant’s counsel exchanged emails during February and March 2024 in which plaintiff’s counsel requested document production and supplemental responses, neither of which defendant produced. (Decl. of Phil A. Thomas, ¶ 11.) On February 28, 2024, defendant agreed to extend plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion to compel further responses on April 3, 2024. (Decl. of Phil A. Thomas, ¶ 11; Exh. D.) On March 30, 2024, plaintiff’s counsel emailed defendant’s counsel asking when documents, supplemental responses, and/or a response to plaintiff’s meet and confer letter could be expected, to which defendant promised a reply by April 3, 2023. (Decl. of Phil A. Thomas, ¶ 12; Exh. E.) Plaintiff met the meet and confer requirement.

C. Separate Statement

Under Rule of Court 3.1345 the movant must submit a separate statement along with the motion to compel further responses that provides all the information necessary to understand

each discovery request and all the responses at issue. The separate statement must include, in relevant part, “(1) The text of the request . . . ; (2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers; (3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute; (4) If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it . . .” (Rule of Court 3.1345(c).)

Plaintiff provided the text of each request, defendant’s response, and defendant’s objection. However, while plaintiff included a “statement of insufficiency” next to each discovery request, the language is similar if not identical for each and does not adequately address the specifics of the discovery request or the response. The court will nevertheless consider the motion on the merits.

D. Unverified Responses

As discussed above, defendant served plaintiff unverified responses. The court orders defendant to provide verification to its discovery responses. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal. 4th 651, 658.) Accordingly

E. Requests for Production Nos. 16, 37-41, and 45-46

Plaintiff argues that defendant’s response to RFP Nos. 16, 37-41, and 45-46 is not code compliant. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240 requires a proper objection to “[i]dentify with particularity any document, tangible thing… to which an objection is being made” and must “[s]et forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(b)(1) - (b)(2).) Plaintiff argues defendant’s objections do not identify with particularity any document to which the objections are made or set for the specific ground for objections. The court finds that defendant did comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240 because defendant’s objections specify which document they are objecting to and provides the extent to and the grounds for objecting such as the request being overbroad, vague, ambiguous, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, irrelevant, and/or privileged. The responses are code compliant.

Plaintiff also argues the RFP Nos. 16, 37-41, and 45-46 seek documents that are highly relevant to the underlying Song-Beverly Act claims.

1. Request no. 16

Plaintiff’s request no. 16 seeks Defendant’s warranty claims policies and procedures manuals from 2021 to the present. Defendant states it has produced all documents responsive to this request. Plaintiff argues that defendant must comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a) which requires that documents or category of documents that are produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling be identified with the specific request number to which the document responds to. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.280(a).) Though defendant argues that it identified the responsive document by exhibit and title, the court orders defendant to specify which documents produced correspond to each request for production.

2. Request no. 37-41

Plaintiff’s request nos. 37-41 seek documents sufficient to identify all of defendant’s OBDII codes (no. 37), all vehicle symptom codes (no. 38), component repair codes (no. 39), customer complaint codes (no. 40), and labor operation codes (no. 41) for the same year, make and model as the subject vehicle.

Defendant states these requests are overbroad because they seek information about all codes, not just documents sufficient to identify the specific codes found in the vehicle. Defendant states the diagnostic data already produced identifies, by code number and name, any diagnostic codes found in the subject vehicle during service or repair. Defendant states that it is working on obtaining that information. The court finds that request nos. 37-41, are not overbroad. Additionally, defendant has already agreed to obtain the requested documents. The court orders defendant to produce documents pertaining to request nos. 37-41.

3. Request no. 45 and 46

Request no. 45 seeks all “documents evidencing complaints by owners of the 2022 Volkswagen Taos vehicle regarding any of the complaints for which the subject vehicle was presented. Defendant argues that because the request is regarding the complaints regarding the subject vehicle, it has already produced those documents. Request no. 46 seeks all documents evidence of warranty repairs to other 2022 Volkswagen Taos vehicles. Defendant argues it has served verified responses to request nos. 45 and 46 and has agreed to produce a spreadsheet of customer complaints similar to plaintiff’s complaints for owners and lessees of 2022 Volkswagen Taos vehicles and a spreadsheet of similar warranty repairs/claims for 2022 Volkswagen Taos vehicles. Accordingly, the court orders defendant to produce the referenced spreadsheets.

F. Requests for Production Nos. 19-32

Plaintiff argues defendant has agreed to produce responsive documents subject to a protective order. Plaintiff signed and served defendant’s protective order on February 12, 2024. Defendant argues it has since produced all documents responsive to these requests. Accordingly, the motion is moot as to these requests.

Plaintiff argues that defendant must comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a) which requires that documents or category of documents that are produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling be identified with the specific request number to which the document responds to. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.280(a).) Though defendant argues that it identified the responsive document by exhibit and title, the court orders defendant to specify which documents produced correspond to each request for production.

G. Sanctions

Plaintiff requests the court award monetary sanctions against defendant. The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to a demand for production, 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(h).) The court finds that because the motion is being granted in part, plaintiff is entitled to monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(h). The court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,185 (2.5 hours at $450/hour plus $60.00 in filing fees) against defendant and its counsel of record, Squire Patton Boggs (US), LLP.

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to request nos. 37-41, 45, and 46 and orders defendant to produce documents within 20 days of this ruling.

The court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to request nos. 16 and 19-32 as moot. As to request nos. 16 and 19-32, the court orders defendant to specify which documents produced correspond to each request for production.

The court orders defendant to provide signed verification for its discovery responses.

The court imposes sanctions on defendant and its counsel of record, Squire Patton Boggs (US), LLP in the amount of $1,185 payable within 20 days of this order.