Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 21STCV17851, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV17851 Hearing Date: February 17, 2023 Dept: 31
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO RPD
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Document No. 46 is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of
$1,475.00 is GRANTED against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record.
Background
On
March 15, 2022, Plaintiff Veronica Stephenson filed a Complaint against
Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc. for breach of implied and express
warranty under the Song-Beverly Act.
On January 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents
(RPD).
Defendant filed an opposition on February 7,
2023.
Plaintiff filed a reply on February 9,
2023.
Legal Standard
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a), parties may move for a further response to request for production where an answer to the requests was evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merits or too general. ¿
Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).) ¿
The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b).) ¿
Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule (CRC) 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).
MEET AND CONFER
Plaintiff’s counsel asserts the attempted to meet and confer
with defense counsel regarding the deficiencies in Defendant’s served response.
(Tran Decl. ¶ 16, Ex. D.) An Informal Discovery Conference was held wherein
Defendant agreed to serve further responses. Thus, the meet and confer
requirement is met.
Discussion
Request for Further Responses to RPD No. 46
Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendant to produce a further response to request for production (RPD) No. 46. Defendant states that the request for further responses to RPD No. 45 is now moot.
Plaintiff requests that Defendant provide additional documents
and serve code-compliant responses that identify and label documents that are
responsive to Plaintiff’s request as required by CCP section 2031.280.
“All DOCUMENTS evidencing warranty repairs to 2019, HONDA, PILOT, vehicles regarding any of the components that YOU or YOUR authorized repair facilities performed repairs on under warranty.”
At the IDC, the Court has already advised that Plaintiff should receive these documents pursuant to paragraph 3 of Attachment “A” to the Joint Addendum to the CMC but limited to electrical concerns regarding the breaks or braking, and only for cars purchased in California. (Tran Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. D.) Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts the request is limited to vehicles of the same year, make and model as Plaintiff’s subject vehicle and pertains only to complaints regarding the same problems and concerns that Plaintiff’s subject vehicle exhibited in its repair orders for cars purchased in California. (Tran Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. F.)
Defendant asserts it has already served a further response
to RPD No. 46 which stated that Defendant “determined no responsive warranty
claims exist related to electrical concerns regarding the brakes, as no
components in the Subject Vehicle were subject to any warranty repair related
to any electrical concern regarding the brakes.” Therefore, Defendant asserts
the motion is moot and should be denied.
Plaintiff asserts the response was evasive and not responsive to the request. Plaintiff requests a further response which states something to the effect of:
“As directed to warranty repairs to 2019 Honda Pilot vehicles regarding the components on which a Honda authorized repair facility performed repairs to the SUBJECT VEHICLE under warranty related to ‘electrical concerns regarding brakes,’ AHM is unable to comply with this request. Pursuant to a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no warranty repairs were performed to any component in the SUBJECT VEHICLE related to ‘electrical concerns regarding brakes,” and therefore AHM has no documents responsive to this request, and no responsive documents have ever existed.’”
Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant unilaterally limited the request to only warranty repairs performed on Plaintiff’s subject vehicle. “Nowhere in the request does it state that the Plaintiff is seeking either only warranty repairs directed to Plaintiff’s ‘Subject Vehicle,’ or to limit it to concerns that Plaintiff exhibited that were only covered under warranty repairs for her ‘Subject Vehicle.’ In fact, the request itself asks for ‘all documents evidencing warranty repairs to 2019 Honda Pilot vehicles.’”
The Court agrees as para. 3 of Attachment “A” to the Joint Case Management Statement Addendum envisions a search that encompasses “vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle.” The Court finds that a further response to RPD No. 46 is warranted and GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.
Request for Sanctions
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h)
provides that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any
party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to
compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to
the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances
make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
Plaintiff properly noticed her request for sanctions in the amount of $2,420.00 against Defendant and its attorney of record. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)
Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $295.00 per hour. (Tran Decl. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff’s counsel asserts 3.0 hours were spent drafting the motion, separate statement, declaration, and proposed order. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel anticipated spending 3.0 hours reviewing Defendant’s opposition and drafting a reply and 2.0 hours preparing for and attending the hearing. (Id.)
The Court awards Plaintiff $1,475.00 in sanctions for 5.0 hours of work against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Document No. 46 is GRANTED. Defendant is order to serve a code-compliant supplemental response and produce responsive documents within 30 days.
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,475.00 is GRANTED against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record.
Moving party to give notice.