Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records defendant is represented by attorney Trevor Ingold of Lewis Brisbois who is involved in the sanctions being ordered by the court.

Case Number: BC665320 Hearing Date: March 26, 2018 Dept: 32

Oscar guzman,

Plaintiff,

v.

american honda motor co., inc.,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC665320

Hearing Date: March 26, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

(1) plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to defedant’s responses to form interrogatories (set two) and sanctions

(2) Defendant’s motion to file under seal confidential customer retention & resolution system report (exhibit “C” to defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories)

BACKGROUND

The complaint in this action was filed by Oscar Guzman (“Plaintiff”) on June 15, 2017 for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Defendant”) answered the complaint on August 10, 2017.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Statements made during settlement negotiations are not admissible. Cal. Evid. Code §1152. Further, these objections are unnecessary because the Court, when reviewing the evidence is presumed to ignore material it knows it incompetent, irrelevant, or inadmissible. (In re Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4th 1507, 1526.)

DISCUSSION

A. Meet and Confer

A motion to compel further responses “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP § 2030.300(b).) Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant regarding deficiencies to Form Interrogatory no. 12.1 on November 7, 2017. (Klitzke Decl. ¶8.) Plaintiff received Defendant’s supplemental responses on December 15, 2017 which did not resolve or address the substance of the previous meet and confer letter. The Court finds Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts were sufficient to comply with CCP §2016.040.

B. Motion to Compel Further Response to Form Interrogatory (“FI”) No. 12.1

Vague, Ambiguous, Overly Broad and Requires Speculation:

In opposition, the Defendant objects to FI no. 12.1 on the grounds that the term “Incident” is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and requires speculation. The term “Incident” was clearly defined as Defendant’s “evaluation and rejection of Plaintiff’s Lemon law claims for the 2016 Honda Civic” and Plaintiff provided the VIN for the vehicle in question. Defendant’s claim that this term is inherently vague and ambiguous because Defendants made a 998 Offer is without merit. Defendant has not demonstrated facts necessary to justify these objections.

Attorney Client and Attorney Work Product:

Further, Defendant objects to FI no. 12.1 based on the attorney client and attorney work product privilege. Upon reviewing the discovery request at issue, CCP §2018.030 and California Evidence Code §954, Defendant’s argument that FI no. 12.1 is phrased to include Defendant’s attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal research and/or work product is without merit or supporting case authority. Defendant does not demonstrate facts showing that the requested information is protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product privilege.

Equally Available:

Defendant’s argument that the information requested is equally available pursuant to CCP §2030.220(c) is without merit. The fact that Defendant intends to provide the CRRS Report document at a later date does not circumvent their obligation to provide a response to FI no. 12.1 in good faith. Further, Defendant produced two sets of confidential documents labeled CRRS and within those documents the names of the technicians discussed are not apparent. Further, due to Defendant’s labeling convention of the documents produced, Plaintiffs are unable to ascertain whether Defendants have actually produced Exh. C to Plaintiff as they represented to the Court. (Opposition 13:15-16) For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds Defendant’s argument that the extraction of this information would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory to be unpersuasive. CCP §2030.230.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to FI No. 12.1 is GRANTED. Defendant must provide complete responses that answer each subpart of the interrogatory without objection.

C. Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal

Defendant requests an order from the Court sealing Exhibit “C” in support of its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, which includes a Customer Retention & Resolution System (“CRRS”) Report. Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed pursuant to a stipulated protective order to keep the CRRS report confidential, (Motion to File Under Seal 3:7-8.) and discovery served between parties is not publicly filed.

However, requesting to put a document under seal is not the same as seeking a protective order to excuse the duty to answer. (CCP §2030.090.) In it motion, Defendant fails to set forth facts to support a finding that an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of the public access to the record. (See, California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d) and McGuan v. Endovascular Technologies (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988.)

As such, Defendant’s Motion to File Confidential CRRS Report Under Seal is DENIED.

D. Sanctions

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, 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. (CCP § 2033.290(d).) Plaintiff moves for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,138.00 for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the motion including $1,032.00 for 4.3 hours of work at $240.00 per hour for preparing the moving papers; 4 additional hours at $240 per hour for reading the opposition, drafting a reply and attending the hearing via court call; the $60.00 filing fee and the $86.00 court call fee.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by filing this motion is GRANTED in the amount of $2,138.00.

E. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to FI No. 12.1 is GRANTED. Defendant must provide complete responses that answer each subpart of the interrogatory.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by filing this motion is GRANTED in the amount of $2,138.00.

Defendant’s Motion to File Confidential CRRS Report Under Seal is DENIED.