Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV24406, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24406    Hearing Date: February 8, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     February 8, 2023                   TRIAL DATE: July 5, 2023

CASE:                         Oscar Garcia Lopez v. FCA US, LLC

CASE NO.:                 21STCV24406           

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Oscar Garcia Lopez

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant FCA US LLC

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a lemon law action filed on July 1, 2021. Plaintiff leased a 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee on which subsequently developed brake, engine, and electrical defects.

            Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production propounded to Defendant.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED.

Defendant is to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of the date of this order.

DISCUSSION:

            Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production propounded to Defendant.

            Legal Standards

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to a demand for inspection when the court finds that: “(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.”

The burden is on the moving party to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) These facts must also be set forth in a separate statement filed by the moving party. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

Timeliness

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production must be served “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).) The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Defendant served its responses to the outstanding discovery requests on March 25, 2022. (Declaration of Armando Lopez ISO Mot. ¶ 4.) The parties agreed to numerous extensions for the deadline to file this motion to September 20, 2022. (Id. ¶¶ 8-12.) At a September 6, 2022 Informal Discovery Conference, the Court ordered, pursuant to an oral agreement by the parties, that any motion to compel further responses was to be filed by September 30. (September 6, 2022 Minute Order.) However, the parties subsequently agreed to extend the motion deadline to October 7, 2022, the date this motion was filed. (Id. ¶ 14, Exh. J.) This motion is therefore timely pursuant to a written stipulation by the parties.

Meet and Confer

A party making a motion to compel further responses must also include a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

The Declaration of Armando Lopez provides extensive documentation of the parties’ meet and confer efforts between April 15, 2022 and the date this motion was filed. (Lopez Decl. Exhs. D-J.) The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the statutory meet and confer obligations.

Good Cause

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 49 through 88. These requests seek extensive documentation relating to the development and specifications of Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles from 2011 to 2018 and the history of defects in these vehicles. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks information concerning their Electrical Control Units, particularly the Powernet Architecture, its central component, the Body Control Module, and its ancestor electrical system, the Totally Integrated Power Module. (See generally Separate Statement.) These requests relate directly to the central allegation of Plaintiff’s Complaint: that the defects experienced by Plaintiff in the subject vehicle originated in the Powernet electrical system in Plaintiff’s vehicle, which were known to Defendant because those defects were allegedly inherited from the TIPM architecture. (See Complaint ¶ 28.) The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for these requests.

Supplemental Responses

Defendant served supplemental responses on September 16, 2022, concerning Defendant’s policies, procedures, and training manuals between 2017 and 2020, and records concerning similar defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. (Declaration of Stephen T. Grimsrud ISO Opp. Exhs. 2-3.) However, Plaintiff contends, and Defendant does not dispute, that these requests do not satisfy the discovery requests at issue here.

Overbreadth and Burden

Although Defendant asserts multiple objections in its responses to Plaintiff’s requests, the principal objection on which Defendant stands in its opposition is that the requests are overbroad and unduly burdensome in the context of the needs of this case. Defendant argues that these requests impose a disproportionate burden on Defendant because they extend beyond inquiries into similar defects found in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as that of the subject vehicle. However, Defendant offers no evidence of the burden which would be imposed by production of these documents which would justify this objection.

Defendant also contends that these requests are overbroad and irrelevant with respect to the TIPM architecture because that system was not installed in Plaintiff’s vehicle, and as to the BCM because none of the repair orders in the record reference issues with the BCM. Neither of these arguments are persuasive. Materials that are related to the allegations in the Complaint are relevant on their face. Further, Defendant’s argument that materials concerning the ancestor power system are unnecessary because it is sufficient for Plaintiff to establish Defendant’s knowledge of defects in the current architecture is also flawed. Defendant neglects that a principal element of Plaintiff’s theory of the case is that Defendant’s knowledge of defects in the Powernet architecture stem from the history of the TIPM architecture. In light of the strong presumption in favor of permitting discovery, and the lack of evidence from Defendant with respect to the burden of production, the Court concludes that an order compelling further responses is warranted.

/

Sanctions

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally, for failure to provide further responses.

 Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 authorizes the Court to impose monetary sanctions on any attorney engaging in the misuse of the discovery process by requiring that attorney to pay the reasonable expenses incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(h) requires the Court to impose sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, 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.

Here, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,790 against Defendant and its counsel.  The Court finds, however, based on the nature of the materials sought, the scope of the requests, and the arguments offered by Defendant, that imposition of sanctions would be unjust under these circumstances. The Court cannot say that Defendant’s objections and refusal to provide complete production of the materials sought, extending beyond the typical “year, make, and model” scope of this type of litigation, was without substantial justification in this instance. The Court therefore declines to award sanctions in connection with this motion.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED.

Defendant is to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of the date of this order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2023                                 ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.