Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23STCV05663, Date: 2025-01-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV05663 Hearing Date: January 24, 2025 Dept: 45
ruthann valencia, et al. v. fca us
llc
Motion to compel further responses to requestS for
production of documents from defendant
Motion to compel further responses to special
interrogatories from defendant
motion to compel further responses to requestS for
admissions from defendant and deem certain responses admitted
motion to compel further responses to form
interrogatories
Date of Hearing: January 24, 2025 Trial Date: February
24, 2025
Department: 45 Case
No.: 23STCV05663
Moving Party: Plaintiffs
Ruthan Valencia and Sean Valencia
Responding Party: No response has been filed as of January
21, 2025
BACKGROUND
This is a lemon law case arising out of
the alleged defects in a 2020 Dodge Ram 1500 purchased by Plaintiffs Ruthan
Valencia and Sean Valencia and manufactured by Defendant FCA US LLC.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint on March
14, 2023, requesting restitution and damages.
On December 18, 2023, Plaintiffs filed
their motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents
from Defendant and their motion to compel further responses to special
interrogatories from Defendant. On December 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their
motion to compel further responses to request for admissions from Defendant and
deem certain responses admitted and their motion to compel further responses to
form interrogatories. The hearing dates for these motions were originally set
for December 2024 but were continued to the present date.
Plaintiffs seek $3,794.00 in sanctions
for the requests for production; $2,144.00 for the special interrogatories;
$3,132.00 for the requests for admissions; and $2,339.00 for the form
interrogatories.
No opposition to the motions has been
filed by Defendant as of January 21, 2025.
[Tentative] Ruling
1. Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production from Defendant is
GRANTED.
2. Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Defendant is
GRANTED.
3. Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions and to Deem
Certain Responses Admitted is GRANTED.
4. Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories from Defendant is
GRANTED.
DISCUSSION
Meet and Confer; Separate Statement
Before bringing a motion to compel
further responses to any discovery request, the moving party must make efforts
to meet and confer in good faith and submit a declaration attesting to those
efforts. (CCP § 2030.300(b).) However, a discovery motion need not be
denied automatically based upon the reason that the moving parties failed to
meet and confer in good faith. (See Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67
Cal.App.4th 424, 434.) Any motion involving the content of a discovery request
or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement
providing all information necessary to understand each discovery request and
all the responses at issue. (CRC Rule 3.1345.)
Plaintiffs’ counsel attached
declarations to the four motions demonstrating that meet and confer
requirements were satisfied. (Melton Declarations ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs
also filed a separate statement identifying the requests with each of the four
motions.
ANALYSIS
Requests for Production
First, Plaintiffs have moved to compel
further responses on the basis that FCA has never provided verified responses
to the requests for production. “The party to whom the demand for inspection…
is directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains
only objections.” (CCP § 2031.250(a).) Unverified responses are “tantamount to
no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d
632.) Defendant must provide verified responses.
Next, Defendant has not complied with
its own statement of compliance. “If a party filing a response to a demand for
inspection…thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or
sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding
party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (CCP § 2031.320(a).) For
some of its responses, Defendant promised to produce documents but has failed
to do so. Defendant must comply with its statements of compliance.
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the
Court must order further responses because Defendant’s responses do not comply
with the Code. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek further responses to RFP Nos. 3-4,
7, 9-10, 13-14, 20-23, 27-28, 31, 32-35, and 37. A responding party must
separately respond to each demand by including, one of the following: (1) a
statement of compliance, (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability
to comply or (3) an objection to all or part of the demand. (CCP § 2031.010.)
For Defendant’s responses to RFP Nos.
3-4, 7, 9, 13, 20-23, 27-28, 31, and 37, Defendant has stated that it will
comply in part, thereby limiting its responses to these requests. However,
Defendant has not identified what documents it is withholding or its reasons
for doing so, as Plaintiffs must have a chance to evaluate Defendant’s reasons
for withholding the documents. Defendant must set forth its grounds for
objection, and to the extent that Defendant is claiming a privilege, Defendant
must provide a privilege log. (CCP §
2031.240.)
For Defendant’s responses to RFP Nos. 32-35,
Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s responses are too general and are without merit.
Defendant has not set forth its objections with specificity. (CCP § 2031.240(b)(1)-(2).) If Defendant
objects to the documents being requested, Defendant must set forth its specific
objections to the documents being requested.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ unopposed
motion to compel further responses to the requests for production is GRANTED.
Special Interrogatories
Defendant
has not provided verified responses to the special interrogatories. As
previously noted, unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all.
Defendant must provide verification for its responses to the special
interrogatories.
The special
interrogatories to which Plaintiffs seek further responses are Special
Interrogatories Nos. 2, 4-12, 19-20, 22-23, and 30.
Plaintiffs
argue that Defendant’s responses to these interrogatories are incomplete,
evasive, and not straightforward. (CCP §
2030.300(a).) For instance, Defendant has failed to produce documents that it
relied upon to answer Plaintiffs’ special interrogatories; therefore,
Plaintiffs are unable to verify the information in Defendant’s responses to the
interrogatories. (See CCP § 2030.230: “The responding party shall then afford
the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect
these documents and to make copies compilations, abstracts, or summaries of
them.”)
The burden
is on Defendant to establish why the interrogatories should not be answered,
and Defendant has failed to do so. (See Coriell v. Superior Court (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 487, 489.) Defendant has failed to support its
objections. (See Williams
v. Superior Court (2017) 3
Cal.5th 531, 541 (the burden of justifying the objections falls on the party
resisting the interrogatory).) Defendant must provide complete, Code-compliant
responses to Plaintiffs’ special interrogatories and provide the documents that
are referenced in several of its responses.
Based on the
foregoing, Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to compel further responses to the special
interrogatories is GRANTED.
Requests for Admissions
Defendant
has failed to provide verifications for its responses to the requests for
admissions. “The party to whom the requests for admissions are directed shall
sign the responses under oath, unless the response contains only objections.” (CCP
§ 2033.240(a).) If the party is a corporation or entity, one of its officers or
agents shall sign the response on behalf of that party. (CCP § 2033.240(b).)
A requesting
party may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the
requests be deemed admitted as well as for monetary sanctions, where the
responding party fails to file a timely response. (CCP § 2033.280(b).). Defendant
served responses, but those responses were unsworn and without verification.
Unverified responses are “tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632) Further, “the court
shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for
admissions have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a
proposed response to the requests in substantial compliance with Section
2033.220.” (CCP § 2033.280.) Defendant’s failure to provide timely, verified responses
means that Plaintiffs may seek an order deeming the requests for admissions
admitted.
Plaintiffs
also argue that Defendant’s responses to RFA Nos. 6-8 are deficient because
Defendant has failed to admit that it issued the warranty that accompanied the
vehicle or any details about the warranty. Further response to these requests
for admissions are required.
Based on the
foregoing, Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to compel further responses to requests
for admissions and to deem certain requests admitted is GRANTED.
Form Interrogatories
Once again,
Defendant failed to provide verifications for its responses to the form
interrogatories. Defendant must provide verified responses to the form
interrogatories.
Plaintiffs
seek a further response for Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. For that
interrogatory, Defendant has failed to provide a complete response because
Defendant did not answer or otherwise address parts (c) and (d) of Form
Interrogatory No. 17.1. Defendant must provide a complete response to this
interrogatory. (See CCP §
2030.300(a).)
Based on the
foregoing, Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to compel further responses to the form
interrogatories is GRANTED.
Sanctions
The Court
may impose monetary sanctions where there has been a misuse of the discovery
process, including failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery,
making unmeritorious objections to discovery, and making evasive responses to
discovery. (CCP §§ 2023.030;
2023.010.)
Here,
Defendant has failed to provide verified responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery
requests and has made unmeritorious objections and evasive responses to the
discovery requests. Accordingly, sanctions are appropriate. Plaintiffs seek
sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s attorneys of record.
For the requests
for production, Plaintiffs have requested $3,794.00 in sanctions. This amount
is based on 4.3 hours to draft the motion and accompanying documents at $550 an
hour plus the $60 filing fee, plus a $12 fee to e-file the motion, plus $40 to
have a courtesy copy delivered to the Court, as well as costs related to
reviewing the opposition and drafting the reply. Because no opposition or reply
has been filed, the Court will only award sanctions based on the first part of
the request (4.3 hours at $550/hr + $60 + $12 + $40) for a total award of
sanctions of $2,477.00 for the requests for production.
For the
special interrogatories, Plaintiffs have requested $2,144.00 in sanctions. This
amount is based on 1.6 hours to draft the motion and accompanying documents at
$550 an hour plus the $60 filing fee, plus a $12 fee to e-file the motion, plus
$40 to have a courtesy copy delivered to the Court, as well as costs related to
reviewing the opposition and drafting the reply. Because no opposition or reply
has been filed, the Court will only award sanctions based on the first part of
the request (1.6 hours at $550/hr + $60 + $12 + $40) for a total award of
sanctions of $992.00 for the special interrogatories.
For the
requests for admissions, Plaintiffs have requested $3,132.00 in sanctions. This
amount is based on 3.3 hours to draft the motion and accompanying documents at
$550 an hour plus the $60 filing fee, plus a $12 fee to e-file the motion, plus
$40 to have a courtesy copy delivered to the Court, as well as costs related to
reviewing the opposition and drafting the reply. Because no opposition or reply
has been filed, the Court will only award sanctions based on the first part of
the request (3.3 hours at $550/hr + $60 + $12 + $40) for a total award of
sanctions of $1,927.00 for the requests for admissions.
For the form
interrogatories, Plaintiffs have requested $2,339.00 in sanctions. This amount
is based on 2.1 hours to draft the motion and accompanying documents at $550 an
hour plus the $60 filing fee, plus a $12 fee to e-file the motion, as well as
costs related to reviewing the opposition and drafting the reply (Plaintiffs
did not request the $40 for this motion). Because no opposition or reply has
been filed, the Court will only award sanctions based on the first part of the
request (2.1 hours at $550/hr + $60 + $12) for a total award of sanctions of $1,227.00
for the form interrogatories.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to compel further responses to
requests for production, motion to compel further responses to special
interrogatories, motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions
and deem certain requests admitted, and motion to compel further responses to
form interrogatories are GRANTED.
Defendant is ordered to provide Code-compliant, verified
responses to the discovery within 20 days of this order.
Plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions are granted in the
amounts of $2,477.00 for the requests for production; $992.00 for the special
interrogatories; $1,927.00 for the requests for admissions; and $1,227.00 for
the form interrogatories.
Defendant and Defendant’s attorneys of record are ordered to
pay these sanctions to Plaintiffs’ counsel within 30 days of this order.