Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case 22AHCV00583 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00583, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

On March 24, 2023, plaintiffs Hugo Gamboa and Yanet Gamboa (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this motion for an order compelling defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) to provide a further response to Request for Production No. 18. Plaintiffs also seek monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,385 against Defendant and counsel of record, Ongaro P.C.

RFP No. 18 seeks “[t]he operative Franchise Agreement . . . on the date of sale of [Plaintiffs’ vehicle] between [Defendant] and the dealership that sold the vehicle to Plaintiff [sic].” Defendant’s response to RFP No. 18 is as follows:

FCA US objects to this request because it is overly broad and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case.

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s objections on the grounds that the document request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information are meritless because the request only seeks one specific document that memorializes any obligations imposed by Defendant on its authorized dealers to report warranty repairs, the cost of warranty repairs, pre-approval for certain warranty repairs, lemon law repurchase request handling, special notification procedures for excessive repairs or repairs for specific parts, the duration of warranty repairs, the parts that were removed, replaced, and determined to have failed, and whether Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiffs’ vehicle was eligible for repurchase. (Motion, 5:21-25; 6:6-13.) Plaintiffs explain that the manufacturer’s policies (or lack of policies) demonstrate how it handles consumer complaints and makes its decisions on whether to replace or repurchase a vehicle; these are important in determining whether a manufacturer has committed a willful violation of the Song-Beverly Act. (Separate Statement, 2:10-14.)

Defendant opposes this motion on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer in good faith. Defendant argues that it has provided a Code-compliant response and that the motion is moot because it will produce the franchise documents requested. Defendant also stands on its objections.

The Court rejects Defendant’s arguments. With respect to Plaintiffs’ efforts to meet and confer, Defendant provides a timeline in its opposition brief showing that the discovery requests were served on October 21, 2022, and that there were two rounds of meet and confer correspondence before this motion was filed. (Opp., 2:10-15.) On January 23, 2023, Defendant agreed to produce the responsive documents in a response to Plaintiffs’ meet and confer letter if Plaintiffs signed a protective order. (Lopez Decl., Ex. G.) Yet, Defendant failed to produce the requested documents for over three weeks even after Plaintiffs signed the proposed order. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 9.) Finally, on March 9, 2023, Plaintiffs asked Defendant to produce the documents by March 17, 2023. (Lopez Decl., Ex. H.) As Defendant did not do so, Plaintiffs brought this motion on March 24, 2023.

Second, in order to find the motion moot as Defendant desires, Defendant had to serve further supplemental responses reflecting their agreement to comply with RFP No. 18. Instead, Plaintiffs state on reply that Defendant has neither served supplemental responses nor produced the documents as represented in their opposition brief. (Reply, 1:3-8.)

Last, Defendant’s fails to meet its burden to show that its objections have merit. Defendant does not address or refute any of Plaintiffs’ arguments in favor of production. Instead, Defendant maintains that the document request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information because the Song-Beverly Act imposes a simple burden of proof. Defendant claims that Plaintiffs are motivated to drive up litigation costs by inflating this dispute; however, the Court notes that the litigation costs involved in discovery motion practice could have been avoided in the first place if Defendant produced the responsive documents as it agreed to do.

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve a supplemental response, without objections, to RFP No. 18 within 10 days of the date of this hearing.

Even if Defendant provided supplemental responses before the hearing on this motion, Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED pursuant to CRC 3.1348. (CRC 3.1348 [“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though … requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”]) The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant in the reduced amount of $2,010 consisting of 5.2 hours at Plaintiffs’ counsel’s hourly rate of $375 and a $60 filing fee, payable within 10 days of the date of this hearing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court