Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 23AHCV01729, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV01729, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

On November 28, 2023, defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) filed this motion to compel plaintiffs Silvestre Cosio and Cynthia Zambrano’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 21 and 25. Defendant also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,750 to be imposed against Plaintiffs’ and their counsel of record.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ responses to RFP Nos. 21 and 25 consist of meritless objections. RFP No. 21 and No. 25. RFP No. 21 sought “[a]ll DOCUMENTS reflecting any social media post made by YOU concerning the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” RFP No. 25 sought “[a]ll DOCUMENTS reflecting any moving violation issued to YOU while driving the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” Defendant argues that the documents demanded relate to the “factual basis under Plaintiffs’ claims and Plaintiffs’ use and impressions of the Subject Vehicle.” (Motion, p. 5.) In response to both requests, Plaintiffs asserted objections on the grounds that they are vague, ambiguous, compound, overly broad, and seeks information which is equally burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff also objected on the grounds that the request potentially sought information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and Plaintiffs’ right to privacy. Plaintiffs add in response to RFP No. 25 that the request is “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” and can “only be intended to embarrass or harass [them].”

In Plaintiffs’ opposition brief, they state that this motion is moot because supplemental responses were served on March 8, 2024. Plaintiffs are correct that their recently served responses supplant the ones at issue in the motion. Therefore, the Court need not address Defendant’s request (which is brought up for the first time in its reply brief) to strike Plaintiffs’ objections. Accordingly, the motion is denied as moot.

Next, the Court addresses the issue of sanctions. Sanctions may be awarded under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even if the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (CRC 3.1348, subd. (a).) A court has discretion not to impose sanctions where it finds “substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (h).) There is “substantial justification” where there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the objection was valid when made and that opposition to the discovery therefore was justified. (See e.g., Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Associates (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557-1558; Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.) Notwithstanding the outcome of the particular discovery motion, the court shall impose a monetary sanction ordering that any party or attorney who fails to confer as required pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.020.)

Plaintiffs did not discuss in their opposition brief how the objections they made to RFP Nos. 21 and 25 were valid. They also did not show why Defendant would be required to further meet and confer after Plaintiffs’ counsel definitively stated that no supplemental responses to those document requests would be served. Defendant already sent a meet and confer letter dated October 25, 2023; in response, Plaintiffs chose to supplement some of their initial responses and represented that they would not supplement their responses to RFP Nos. 21 and 25. Therefore, sanctions would be warranted against Plaintiffs. However, Defendant does not provide any explanation supporting its request for $1,750 in “reasonably incurred costs and attorneys’ fees.” Defense counsel does not identify his hourly rate or how many hours he spent on drafting this motion. The Court additionally notes that Defendant should have filed two motions and two filing fees because Defendant is requesting orders compelling two sets of further responses, one set for each plaintiff. Therefore, any monetary sanctions would be conditioned on Defendant’s payment of an additional filing fee and filing proof of payment with the Court.

In light of the foregoing, unless defense counsel is prepared to discuss his calculation of attorneys’ fees at the hearing, Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

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.