Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV12173, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12173    Hearing Date: March 7, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On May 30, 2023, Plaintiff Luis E. Penaloza filed this action against Defendant General Motors LLC arising from Plaintiff’s purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle.

On November 2, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant General Motors LLC with a Request for Production of Documents, Set One.  (Yashar Decl. ¶ 4; Exhibit 1.)  Plaintiff seeks information regarding Plaintiff’s vehicle, recalls and technical service bulletins for the Subject Vehicle, and similar complaints from consumers of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle.  (Yashar Decl. ¶ 5.)  Defendant provided responses on December 4, 2023, which Plaintiff deemed insufficient.  (Yashar Decl. ¶ 6; Exhibit 2.)  After meeting and conferring with Defendant, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses on January 12, 2024.  (Yashar Decl. ¶¶ 7-9; Exhibits 3-4.)  Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,004.15 against Defendant and Erskine Law Group, PC.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that 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 to the response is without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1)-(3).)  A motion brought pursuant to CCP § 2031.310 “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)  

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, 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., § 2031.320, subd. (d).) A court has discretion to fix the amount of reasonable monetary sanctions.  (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.)

Plaintiff seeks further responses to RFP Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 34, and 35.

RFP No. 13 requests all documents identifying Defendant’s repurchases of other vehicles of the same make and model that contained the same alleged defects.  RFP No. 14 requests all documents related to similar complaints about defects by owners of those vehicles, and RFP No. 16 requests all documents showing the number of owners with complaints.  RFP No. 15 requests all documents in which owners of similar vehicles reported the same defects.  Defendant asserted only objections to such discovery.

RFP Nos. 34 and 35 request all documents related to technical service bulletins and recalls issued for the same vehicle.  For RFP No. 34, although interposing objections, Defendant agreed to produce “a list of technical service bulletins (‘TSBs’) and information service bulletins (‘ISBs’) for vehicles of the same year, make and mode as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.  After it has produced a list of TSBs and ISBs, GM will—at Plaintiff’s request—search for and produce, if located, copies of a reasonable number of TSBs and ISBs, if any, that Plaintiff has identified as relevant to the conditions alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.”  As to RFP No. 35, besides asserting objections, Defendant stated “that the SUBJECT VEHICLE has no current record of required field actions, including recalls, as shown in the image below from the Global Warranty History Report.”

The Court finds that Plaintiff shown good cause to compel further responses. Counsel declares that the discovery at issue is necessary for Plaintiff’s preparation in this matter and the discovery is needed “[i]n order to best serve the Plaintiff and inquire information about the defects of the subject vehicle.” (Yashar Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.) The information sought pursuant to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents is relevant because each request relates to the allegedly defective vehicle purchased by Plaintiff.

The Court notes that Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents are not verified.  (Yashar Decl. ¶ 6; Exhibit 2.)  “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”  (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Given that the motion is unopposed, however, Defendant has conceded to the motion. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Also, the Court finds that granting the motion despite the procedural irregularity will not result in any prejudice to Defendant.

Counsel states that her hourly rate is $425.00 per hour, and she spent two (2) hours drafting the instant motion, anticipates spending one (1) hour reviewing the opposition and drafting a reply, and anticipates spending 1.5 hours preparing for and attending the hearing on the motion. (Yashar Decl., ¶ 14.) Counsel states that in all her attorney fees will total $1,912.50. (Yashar Decl., ¶ 14.) Plaintiff incurred a filing fee of $61.65 in filing the instant motion and counsel anticipates the cost of $30.00 to e-file the motion and reply fee for a total sum of $91.95. (Yashar Decl., ¶ 15.) In sum, Plaintiff seeks total monetary sanctions of $2,004.15 against Defendant and Erskine Law Group, PC. (Yashar Decl., ¶ 15.)

The Court exercises its discretion and awards Plaintiff reasonable monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 given the straightforward nature of the motion and the lack of opposition to the motion. Such amount includes the $61.65 filing fee incurred by Plaintiff.  

The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFPs No. 13, 14, 15, 16, 34, and 35. Defendant is ORDERED to provide verified, complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s RFPs No. 13, 14, 15, 16, 34, and 35 within 30 days of the date of this order. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, Erskine Law Group, PC are ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000.00, jointly and severally, within 30 days of the date of this order.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as set forth above. 

The request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART as set forth above.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 7th day of March 2024