Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2022-01280467, Date: 2023-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs’ (Frank Guerrero, Lily Beltran, and Mary H. Guerrero) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One (Motion), filed on 3-30-23 under ROA No. 42, is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part as set forth below.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides: “(a) 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. [¶] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. [¶] (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following: [¶] (1) the motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. [¶] (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. . . [¶] (c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”

The Motion seeks to compel “. . . further amended, verified, Code-compliant responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, 20, 24, 26, 31, 36, 39, 47, 49, 51, 53, 60, 61, 65, 67, 68, 81, 82, 83, 84, and 85 . . . .” (Motion; 4:24-28.)  The Supplemental Declaration from Plaintiffs’ attorney, filed on 7-17-23 under ROA No. 51, states, “However, on July 10, 2023, well after Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel Further Responses, Defendant served its ‘Amended and Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One.’ Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Defendant’s Amended and Supplemental Responses electronically served on Plaintiffs on July 10, 2023.” (Smith Decl., ¶ 4.)  Except for Request for Production (RFP) No. 47, Defendant’s (FCA USA, LLC) Amended and Supplemental Responses provide a further response to each of the requests at issue.

Plaintiffs’ Reply (Reply), filed on 7-17-23 under ROA No. 55, states, “Defendant’s Amended and Supplemental Responses are not Code-compliant, suffer from the same issues as the original responses and the corresponding production similarly excluded entire categories of documents.” (Reply; 2:18-20.)  The sufficiency of the supplemental responses, however, is not properly before this court at this time particularly given the substantive changes they include. (Smith Decl., ¶ 4 and Exhibit A.)  As a result, the parties should attempt a good faith informal resolution of the new issues presented by Defendant’s (FCA USA, LLC) Amended and Supplemental Responses.  If the parties are unable to resolve the new issues, then the proper procedure it to bring a new motion for the court to address the sufficiency of the supplemental responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)  Therefore, the court DENIES the Motion as to all of the RFPs at issue as MOOT except for RFP No. 47.

As to RFP No. 47, the court DENIES the Motion as to RFP No. 47, Defendant objects to the term “engine defect” as “vague” and “ambiguous.” (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement (PSS) filed on 3-30-23 under ROA No. 38; 51:23-52:14.)  The Complaint, filed on 9-12-22 under ROA No. 2, appears to identify a transmission defect as the only defect associated with the Subject Vehicle.  Paragraph 37 of the Complaint alleges a transmission defect.  Since RFP No. 47 does not refer to a transmission defect and refers to other defects, the court finds that RFP No. 47 is vague and ambiguous as to the defect at issue.  Therefore, the court DENIES the Motion as to RFP No. 47.

Based on the above, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ (Frank Guerrero, Lily Beltran, and Mary H. Guerrero) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, filed on 3-30-23 under ROA No. 42, as MOOT as to all of the RFPs at issue except as to RFP No. 47.  The court DENIES the Motion as to RFP No. 47. 

As to Plaintiffs’ request for a monetary sanction, Defendant’s Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (Opposition), filed on 7-11-23 under ROA No. 47, states, “No sanctions should be granted under any circumstances as Plaintiffs’ failed to continue to substantively meet and confer.” (Opposition; 12:17-18.)  Paragraphs 24-32 of the declaration in support of the Motion demonstrate that Plaintiffs sufficiently complied with the meet and confer requirement contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.310, subdivision (b)(2). (Neubauer Decl., ¶¶ 24-32.)

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) provides, “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Defendant’s Amended and Supplemental Responses show that Defendant recognized that its initial responses were not complete.  Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion to the extent it requests a monetary sanction, and awards a monetary sanction in the amount of $5,940.00 in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant. (Neubauer Decl., ¶ 48; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)  Plaintiffs were substantially justified in bringing this Motion to gain Defendant’s compliance with the discovery requests at issue.

Plaintiffs are to give notice.