Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 22STCV19862, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV19862 Hearing Date: April 13, 2023 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: April 13, 2023
CASE NAME: Said Garcia v. General Motors, LLC
CASE NO.: 22STCV19862
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Said Garcia
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant General Motors
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Form Interrogatory 12.1.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff Said Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant.”) The complaint alleged one cause of action for Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Plaintiff alleges that he purchased the Subject Vehicle from the Defendant, which contained various express and implied warranties. After returning the Vehicle to an authorized service and repair facilities on at least 2 separate times to repair nonconformities, Defendant failed to conform the Vehicle to the warranties.
On July 22, 2022, Defendant General Motors, LLC filed an Answer.
On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses. Defendant’s Opposition was filed on March 30, 2023. Plaintiff’s Reply was filed on April 6, 2023.
LEGAL STANDARD:
If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)
Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all, and are subject to a motion to compel responses (rather than a motion to compel further responses). (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635-36.)
Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)
Meet and Confer Efforts:
Defendant argues in the Opposition that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith. Plaintiff did not attempt to resolve the dispute in any manner and did not substantively address Defendant’s concerns. The Court makes a note of this issue, but will still make a ruling based on the merits.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide further discovery responses to Form Interrogatory No. 12.1.
No. 12.1 states:
State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual:
(a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT;
(b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT;
(c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and
(d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of 10 the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034).
Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s response was inadequate. Specifically, in Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, Plaintiff argues that the individuals in Form 12.1 are percipient witnesses and have “information regarding Plaintiff’s claims in varying detail.” (Sep. Stmt. 4: 8-10.) Moreover, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s claim of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine fail, and no privilege log has been provided.
Defendant argues that Form 12.1 does not pertain to breach of warranty matters since it involves an “incident.” Thus, Defendant’s objections were valid since Defendant’s potential liability is based on years of repair history. Even then, Defendant still answered indicating that “other than Plaintiff the employees of the dealership where the vehicle was serviced, it was aware of no other individuals.” (Opp. 3: 1-12.)
“Section 2017.010 and other statues governing discovery ‘must be construed liberally in favor or disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes of denial’” (Yelp Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1, 15). Thus, this information is relevant, Defendant has failed to provide a sufficient reason for not producing this information, and discovery disclosure is construed liberally.
Therefore, Motion to Compel Further Response to Form 12.1 is GRANTED in part.
Sanctions:
Plaintiff has not requested sanctions. Therefore, the Court will not grant any sanctions.
Conclusion:
For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
Motion to Compel Further Response is GRANTED. Defendant is to serve verified, code compliant responses within 30 days service of this order.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 13, 2023 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra
Judge of the Superior Court