Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV02968, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV02968    Hearing Date: February 20, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          On January 21, 2025, plaintiff Debbie R. Canada (“Plaintiff”) filed this motion for an order compelling defendant A&B Motor Cars Inc. (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to Special Interrogatory No. 4 and Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1, 2, and 24. The motion is unopposed.

          As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff should have filed two motions and paid two filing fees. Multiple motions should not be combined into a single filing.¿(See¿Govt. Code,¿§ 70617(a)(4) [setting forth the required filing fee for each motion, application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing];¿see¿also¿Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, [8:1140.1] at 8F-60 (The Rutter Group 2011)¿[“Motions to compel compliance with separate discovery requests ordinarily should be filed separately.”].) Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect. The Court therefore conditions its ruling on this motion, set forth below, on the payment of an additional $60 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

Special Interrogatory No. 4: DENIED. The interrogatory is impermissibly compound and includes subparts by asking Defendant to not only identify the name of the dealer management system it uses but also specify whether it is a cloud-based system or a server that Defendant owns or maintains.

RFP No. 1 requests “[a]ll advertising materials disseminated by YOU or on YOUR behalf within the ninety (90) days immediately preceding and up to the date of the TRANSACTION which is the subject of PLAINTIFF'S complaint which relate to the CAR including by way of example but not limited to: newspaper advertisements, leaflets, coupons, brochures, tapes of radio and TV ads, internet ads, photographs of display signs, photographs of showroom windows, and photographs of  vehicle windshields painted with advertisement.”

Defendant stated that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made, but the documents requested have been lost, destroyed, and are no longer available, and that it is not aware of anyone who might have copies. Plaintiff argues that a further response is needed because it is unlikely that no documents are actually retrievable. Plaintiff refers to Defendant’s record-keeping obligations under 13 CCR 272, but this regulation only requires a licensed dealer to maintain records “insofar as those records are directly concerned with the purchase, sale, rental or lease of a vehicle.” This definition does not include “advertising materials.”

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to RFP No. 1.

RFP No. 2 requests screenshots of pages in Defendant’s dealer management system containing data relating to Plaintiff’s transactions, car, financing, repairs and inspections, and other notes or comments. The sole objection asserted by the Defendant is that the demand is compound. However, as Plaintiff points out, there is no statutory prohibition against compound language in the Civil Discovery Act. Defendant did not oppose this motion and necessarily did not show that this objection is justified. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED as to RFP No. 2.

          RFP No. 24 requests “[d]ocuments relating to the profit at all levels, including gross profit, net profit and/or differed profit of [sic] from the CAR sold to PLAINTIFF, including internal profit, or profit generated from any other dealership department, service contracts or accessories sold with the CAR.”

          Defendant objected to this RFP on the grounds that it would invade its right to financial privacy. The objection is overruled because the request is narrowly tailored to seek information about Plaintiff’s specific transaction with Defendant and Plaintiff explains that she is not seeking tax returns. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED as to RFP No. 24 and a further response is required.

          Defendant is ordered to serve a further response to RFP Nos. 2 and 24 within 20 days after Plaintiff files proof that the additional $60 filing fee has been paid.

Dated this 20th day of February 2025

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.