Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 22STCV18068, Date: 2024-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV18068, Date: 2024-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18068 Hearing Date: May 23, 2024 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: May 23, 2024 TRIAL DATE: October 15, 2024

CASE: Stephen Suh v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

CASE NO.: 22STCV18068

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH

COURT’S FEBRUARY 27, 2023 ORDER; REQUEST FOR SANCTION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Stephen Suh.

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

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is a lemon law action filed June 1, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that he purchased a 2019 Honda Odyssey which manifested electrical, transmission, and engine defects.

Plaintiff moves to compel compliance with the Court’s February 27, 2023 Order compelling further responses to requests for production and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance is GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to produce verified, code-compliant responses without objections or limitations within 20 days of this order, including electronically stored information and email searches using the terms specified by Plaintiff in the reply brief, as to Requests Nos. 1, 20, 24-27, 32, 37, 40, 85, 86, 110, 120, 125-28, and 139.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED against Defendant in the amount of $2,550. Payment is to be made within 30 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Compliance

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s compliance with the Court’s February 27, 2023 order under the Court’s inherent authority to compel compliance with its orders under Code of Civil Procedure section 128(a)(4).

Analysis

On February 27, 2023, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production. The Court considered Defendant’s objections and responses to Requests Nos. 1, 17, 20, 24-27, 32, 37, 40, 44, 48-51, 56, 61, 64, 85, 86, 100, 110, 120, 125-28, and 139 and found the objections to be without merit and the responses to be improperly evasive. (February 27, 2023 Minute Order.) The Court ordered Defendant to produce further responses that were verified, code-compliant, and without objections within 60 days of the order, including Electronically Stored Information (ESI) and email searches. (Id.)

On April 28, 2023, Defendant served unverified responses that, in large part, stated that the production would be limited to all documents that are in Defendant’s possession, custody, and control and as to which no objections are being made. (See Declaration of Alexus Ringstad ISO Mot. ¶ 4 Exh. 2 Nos. 1, 17, 20, 24-27.) Unverified responses are “tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Moreover, the Court expressly ordered verified responses without objections on February 27, 2023, and also ordered production of ESI and email searches. Defendant has not provided valid responses as ordered by the Court.

In response to this motion, Defendant entirely fails to address the sufficiency of its responses, except to claim that it has been “inundated” and therefore unable to comply with the Court’s order to produce ESI and email searches because it is attempting to redact the emails it has gathered which contain personally identifiable information. Defendant justifies the delay in that respect as the result of extensive discussions with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the scope of ESI searches. (See Declaration of Ricardo Azcarraga ISO Opp. ¶¶ 10-12.)

In reply, Plaintiff concedes that Defendant served verifications on January 11, 2024, and responsive documents on January 11 and 12. (Declaration of Hannah Theophil ISO Reply ¶¶ 11, 19.) Plaintiff states that further responses are no longer sought as to requests 17, 44, 48-51, 56, 61, 64, and 100, but that Defendant’s responses remain insufficient as to Requests Nos. 1, 20, 24-27, 32, 37, 40, 85, 86, 110, 120, 125-28, and 139. Plaintiff also contends that efforts to meet and confer in January 2024 revealed Defendant had only conducted native language searches, rather than using search terms selected by Plaintiff. (Theophil Decl. ¶ 28.) Further, Plaintiff states that Defendant has still failed to produce responsive emails. (Theophil Decl. ¶ 32.) Plaintiff also states that Defendant has not cured the improper limitations of the scope of its April 28 responses. (Theophil Decl. ¶¶ 10, 34.)

The Court concurs with Plaintiff. Defendant’s justifications do not suffice to account for a full year’s delay in providing responsive emails sought by Plaintiff. Moreover, redaction of confidential information is not a valid justification where the parties have stipulated to a protective order regarding the handling of that information, as they did here on October 10, 2022. Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling compliance with the Court’s February 27, 2023 Order.

Sanctions

Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $4,250 from Defendant for its failure to comply. 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 because of that conduct. Plaintiff’s request is based on 10 hours of attorney time incurred by Alexus Ringstad on this motion at an hourly rate of $425. (Ringstad Decl. ¶ 10.) The Court finds this request to be somewhat inflated given the basis of the motion. The Court will therefore award reduced sanctions in the amount of $2,550, reflecting 6 hours of attorney time at $425.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED against Defendant in the amount of $2,550.00. Payment is to be made within 30 days of this order.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 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.