Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 23AHCV01909, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV01909, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

On August 22, 2023, plaintiff PCH Fuel, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Cadillac Pasadena LLC (“Defendant”) arising from its purchase of a 2023 Cadillac Escalade (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant advertised the sale of the Subject Vehicle for a certain price on the internet but when Plaintiff came to purchase it, Plaintiff was charged $40,000 more than the advertised price without his knowledge.

On September 22, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff served its responses on October 19, 2023.

On December 5, 2023, Defendant filed this motion for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses and imposing sanctions against Plaintiff and its attorney.

At issue in this motion are Defendant’s RFP Nos. 1-4, which ask Plaintiff to produce all documents that support specific contentions made in the complaint, RFP Nos. 5-8, which ask for all advertisements for the Subject Vehicle and documents related thereto, and RFP No. 10, which asks for all documents relating to Plaintiff’s communications with Defendant at any time.

Plaintiff argues in its opposition brief that amended responses have already been served, making this motion moot. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s amended responses, attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Hovanes Margarian, remain deficient. Specifically, Defendant takes issue with Plaintiff’s further responses to RFP Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8, which state that it is “not in possession” of responsive documents such as “advertisement copies” and claim that third parties, including “Dealerinspire.com”, “Amazonaws.com/Cloud Hosting with Amazon Web Services”, “Getclicky.com” and “Autohub.io”, possess them. The Court agrees that these responses are not Code-compliant. Plaintiff’s further responses do not state that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry were performed or state “whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) The responses also do not set forth the address of the organizations known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

With respect to RFP No. 2, which requests documents supporting Plaintiff’s contention that “Ramon Meza and the Finance Manager assured [it] that [it] was getting a great hassle-free deal”, Plaintiff responds that it has no documents in its possession because “verbal assurances are not in writing by definition.” This response does not state whether a diligent search and reasonable inquiry have been performed and does not clearly state that there are no documents to be produced because they never existed in the first place.

Similarly, Plaintiff’s further responses to RFP Nos. 3, 4, and 10 are also not Code-compliant because Plaintiff does not unambiguously state whether it will comply with the demand in whole or in part. For example, in response to RFP No. 10, which requests “all documents relating to [Plaintiff’s] communications with [Defendant]”, Plaintiff states that it will “produce all communications of which Plaintiff has retained documentation.” This response is ambiguous because it only specifically agrees to produce communications, even though the document request includes “all documents relating to” those communications, and Plaintiff does not clearly state whether there were documents which cannot be produced because they no longer exist.

In light of the foregoing, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED and the Court orders Plaintiff to serve further Code-compliant responses to RFP Nos. 1-8, and 10 within 20 days of the date of this order. The Court also imposes sanctions on Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $2,610, consisting of 6 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $425 and a $60 filing fee, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this order. If Plaintiff then fails to produce any documents in accordance with its amended responses, Defendant may file a motion to compel compliance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320 and seek sanctions.

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.