Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00489, Date: 2023-03-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00489    Hearing Date: March 10, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Zandra Martinez to provide further verified responses to Request for Production (“RFP”) Nos. 1 and 2.  RFP Nos. 1 and 2 seek the written sales agreement and arbitration agreement, respectively, relating to Plaintiff’s purchase of the vehicle which is the subject of this action. 
            On February 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief and declaration stating that supplemental responses have already been provided and she has agreed to produce all responsive documents in her custody, possession, and control and will produce the Retail Installment Sales Contract (“RISC”).  (Amarkarian Decl., pp. 6:5-12, 8:6-13.)  Plaintiff further responds that she cannot produce the back of the RISC because it has been lost or misplaced, and therefore it is no longer in her possession, custody, or control.  (Id.) 

Plaintiff also argues that this motion was unnecessary because Defendant could subpoena the same documents from the dealer that sold her the car, Duarte Nissan Motor Group, LLC.  However, the dealership appears to no longer be in business.  (Reply, 3:12-13.)  Moreover, whether Defendant can subpoena the documents from a third-party has no bearing on Plaintiff’s own discovery obligations to perform a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and produce documents that are within her possession, custody, or control.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s supplemental response is insufficient.  First, it is not verified.  Second, Plaintiff’s response to RFP No. 2 agrees to comply by producing documents responsive to RFP No. 1 but does not agree to produce documents responsive to RFP No. 2.  While this may be a typographical error, in light of the meritless nature of Plaintiff’s objections (which Plaintiff does not even attempt to substantiate), Defendant is entitled to a clear statement of compliance.   

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel further response is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to produce further verified responses, without objections, within 20 days.

Although the Court is skeptical of Plaintiff’s claim that the back side of the RISC has been lost or misplaced, the Court cannot order Plaintiff to produce something that is not in her possession.  Therefore, to the extent that Defendant seeks to compel the production of the RISC, the motion is DENIED. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at AHLDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 10th day of March, 2023