Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV31373, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31373    Hearing Date: January 5, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     January 5, 2024                     TRIAL DATE: March 12, 2024

CASE:                         Antonio Mondragon Espinoza et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV31373           

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET TWO); REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Antonio Mondragon Espinoza and Araceli Garcia Diaz

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a lemon law action filed on August 24, 2021. Plaintiffs allege that, on April 11, 2017, Plaintiffs purchased a new 2017 Honda Pilot which developed serious defects, including transmission problems. Plaintiffs have sued American Honda Motor Co., Inc., the manufacturer of the vehicle, under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civil Code § 1790, et seq.

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to requests for production propounded to Defendant, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is DENIED AS MOOT.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,245 against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally. Payment is to be made within 20 days of this order.

//

//

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to requests for production propounded to Defendant, and for sanctions.

Plaintiffs propounded Requests for Production (Set Two) to Defendant on October 27, 2022. (Declaration of Thach Tran ISO Mot. ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Defendant served initial responses on March 17, 2023. (Id. ¶ 6, Exh. B.)  On September 25, 2023, the parties attended an Informal Discovery Conference regarding the discovery at issue in this motion, in which the parties stipulated that Defendant would provide supplemental responses and responsive documents to RFPs Nos. 67, 74-78, 80, 82, and 85 within 30 days of the date of the IDC. (Tran Decl. ¶ 12, Exhs. F-G.) As of November 8, 2023, the date this motion was filed, Plaintiffs had not received any responses from Defendant. (Tran Decl. ¶ 13.) Defendant states in its opposition that it served supplemental responses and provided all responsive documents on November 9, 2023. (Declaration of Sean P. Ducar ISO Opp. ¶ 5 Exhs. 2-3.) Verification for the responses followed on November 13, 2023. (Id. ¶ 6 Exhs. 4-5.) Plaintiffs do not dispute the sufficiency of the supplemental responses, but nevertheless seek sanctions for Defendant’s tardy supplemental 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. Disobeying a court order to provide discovery is a misuse the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(g).) 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.

Defendant argues in its opposition that sanctions are not warranted because supplemental responses were provided one day after the motion was filed. The Court is not persuaded. The Court gave Defendant until October 25, 2023 to provide supplemental responses, and the undisputed facts show that it failed to comply with this order, and only served responses on November 9, which would have been the last day to file this motion had Plaintiffs waited. Plaintiffs would have been within their rights to move to compel on October 26, and their decision to wait effectively granted Defendant additional time to comply with this Court’s order. Instead, Defendant chose not to respond until after the motion was filed, disobeying this Court’s order. Defendant has misused the discovery process. Sanctions are warranted.

Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally in the amount of $2,430. This amount is based on 3 hours of attorney time at $395 per hour, plus 3 anticipated hours at the same rate, plus $60 in filing fees. (Tran Decl. ¶¶ 15-17.) The Court declines to award anticipated hours, as they do not constitute expenses actually incurred. Plaintiffs are therefore awarded reduced sanctions in the amount of $1,245, representing 3 hours of attorney time at $395 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is DENIED AS MOOT.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,245 against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally. Payment is to be made within 20 days of this order.

Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  January 5, 2024                                  ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.