Judge Thomas Falls, Case 22PSCV00737 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

RE: SECUNDINO RAMIREZ TIRADO, et al. vs MOSS BROS. CJD, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. (22PSCV00737)

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES FROM DEFENDANT FCA US, LLC, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES FROM DEFENDANT FCA US, LLC, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS is DENIED and monetary sanctions are imposed upon Plaintiffs’ Counsel in an amount TBD for bringing forth a motion without substantial justification.

This is a lemon law case arising from Plaintiffs’ purchase of 2020 RAM ProMaster 1500 High Roof that experienced nonconformities related to the transmission and engine. Plaintiffs filed suit for 1. VIOLATION OF SONG-BEVERLY ACT - BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY 2. VIOLATION OF SONG-BEVERLY ACT - BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY 3. VIOLATION OF THE SONG- BEVERLY ACT SECTION 1793.2 4. NEGLIGENT REPAIR.

Motions to compel further responses must always be accompanied by a meet-and confer-declaration (per Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040) demonstrating a “reasonable and good faith attempt an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Id., §§ 2030.300(b), 2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b).)[1] They must also be accompanied by a separate statement containing the requests and the responses, verbatim, as well as reasons why a further response is warranted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) The separate statement must also be complete in itself; no extrinsic materials may be incorporated by reference. (Id., rule 3.1345(c).)

“Interrogatories expedite the resolution of lawsuits in a variety of ways” such as by “facilitate[ing] preparation for trial by providing a means of securing evidence and evidentiary leads.” (Id) (emphasis added). For instance, a person may be forced to disclose the identity and location of persons having knowledge of particular relevant facts, but may not be required to reveal the identity of non-expert witness or to disclose the nature of their anticipated testimony.” (Id. at 781.) Additionally, when responding to interrogatories, “[a] party cannot state, ‘not applicable’ where the interrogatory is clearly applicable to him.” (Id. at p. 783.) Accordingly, “[a]nswers must be complete and responsive.” (Id.)

“If answers or objections are on file, and the propounding party deems that further response is required, he must file a motion to compel further answers within 30 days after the date of service of answers or objections.” (Id. at p. 788.) “This statute is mandatory and a court may not entertain a belated motion to compel.” (Id.)[2] “Where a motion to compel is made, the court has the discretionary power to grant in part, and deny in part, that is to balance the purpose and need for the information against the burden which production entails . . . The merits of specific objections must be considered. A court may require financial reimbursement for unduly burdensome and frivolous interrogatories.” (Id. at pp. 788-789.)

Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement indicates that the following interrogatories are at issue:

INTERROGATORY NO. 24: IDENTIFY by name and job title all persons that evaluate eligibility for a vehicle repurchase on behalf of FCA US LLC pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act from 2021 to the present.

INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Do the individuals that YOU task with evaluating a vehicle repurchase have access to warranty data for similar customer complaints or vehicle repairs?

INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Describe the manner in which YOU track the number of FCA vehicles that have been repurchased or replaced in California, if at all, from 2021 to the present.

INTERROGATORY NO. 34: State the name of YOUR department(s) or division(s) that monitors vehicle warranty trends.

INTERROGATORY NO. 35: State the name(s) of YOUR department(s) or division(s) that are responsible for TREAD Act compliance.

INTERROGATORY NO. 36: State the name of YOUR department(s) or division(s) that self reports on behalf of YOU to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding vehicle safety concerns

INTERROGATORY NO. 38: List each database, system, or software used to store, query, or analyze warranty repair data.

INTERROGATORY NO. 39: List each database, system, or software used to store, query, or analyze condition, issue, problem, or defect occurrence rates.

INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Describe how YOU track warranty repair data for California vehicles from 2021 to the present.

INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Describe how YOU track customer complaints for California vehicles from 2021 to the present.

INTERROGATORY NO. 45: At the time of release for the 2019 Dodge Ram 1500 vehicles, state your anticipated range for repairs per thousand vehicles sold (R/1000).

INTERROGATORY NO. 46: State the repairs per thousand vehicles sold (R/1000) for 2019 Dodge Ram 1500 vehicles.

INTERROGATORY NO. 47: Identify in order the five symptoms with the highest repairs per thousand (R/1000) for 2019 Dodge Ram 1500 vehicles, and the corresponding repairs per thousand.

INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Identify in order the five components with the highest repairs per thousand (R/1000) for 2019 Dodge Ram 1500 vehicles, and the corresponding repairs per thousand.

In sum, these interrogatories seek, inter alia, information regarding FCA US’ tracking of warranty repairs and consumer complaints, such as the names of various departments that track this information and the databases and types of software utilized by Defendant.

Here, considering that Plaintiffs’ complaint is nothing more than boilerplate lemon law allegations, Plaintiffs’ argument that its discovery inquiries are relevant to the litigation is unpersuasive.

First, the complaint pertains to a 2020 Dodge; thus, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek information on 2019 vehicles or other vehicles, they are irrelevant.

Second, to the extent that interrogatories seek information related to a “condition, issue, problem, or defect occurrence rates,” the complaint only pertains to alleged transmission defects and engine defects. Therefore, they are irrelevant.

Third, as for the other interrogatories, the Separate Statement does not provide how the interrogatories are relevant. Rather, for each interrogatory, Plaintiffs merely provide boilerplate legal conclusions that further answers are warranted, and legal conclusions that are not helpful to assessing the interrogatory at issue. For example, as to number 24 which seeks the identity of the “name and job title all persons that evaluate eligibility for a vehicle repurchase on behalf of FCA US LLC pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act from 2021 to the present,” why is this information sought? Is it to obtain a witness for trial or obtain a PMK? Plaintiffs have not explained the relevance.

All in all, Plaintiffs interrogatories embody exactly what the Deyo court warned about:

that “[w]hile interrogatories serve useful purposes, they often are abused. Lengthy interrogatories suitable to major litigation, are often needlessly used in small cases. Questions are often repetitious or wholly irrelevant.” (Id. at 779.)

Accordingly, as it is fundamental that the only objective of the pretrial discovery rules is to allow a party to obtain all the facts relative to a claim or defense and Plaintiffs have not made such a showing, the court denies the entire motion.

[1] Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer. On the other hand, Plaintiffs aver that they met and conferred twice in writing and FCA made clear that it was standing by its objections in its December 6, 2022 and January 6, 2023 response letters. (Reply p. 2.) Thus, the court agrees with Plaintiffs that based on Defendant’s continued stance that its responses are proper, the court’s intervention was required.

[2] Even though Defendant maintained its objections in a letter dated December 6, 2022, Plaintiffs state that the motion is timely because they filed this motion by the stipulated motion to compel deadline of January 13, 2023. (Motion pp. 2-3.) Thus, as Defendant does not object on the grounds of untimeliness, the court finds the motion is timely.