| Madsen v. Chrysler Group LLC |
CASE NO. 114CV259315 |
|
| DATE: 10 July 2014 |
TIME: 9:00 |
LINE NUMBER: 20 |
This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 19 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 19 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Thursday 9 July 2014. Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.
On 10 July 2014, the motion of Plaintiff to compel Defendant Chrysler Group LLC to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of documents and for monetary sanctions was argued and submitted.[1]
Defendants filed formal opposition to the motion.
Statement of Facts
On 30 March 2011, Plaintiff purchased a 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee from Normandin Chrysler Jeep in San Jose. He subsequently filed a complaint against Defendant on 21 January 2014, alleging violations of the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and a violation of the Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.[2]
Defendant answered the complaint on 25 February 2014.
The moving papers do not discuss the nature of the claimed defects in the Jeep Grand Cherokee in question.
Discovery Dispute
On 6 March 2014, Plaintiff propounded to Defendant his first set of requests for production of documents.
On 10 April 2014, Defendant provided responses which Plaintiff contends are unresponsive, evasive, incomplete and non-compliant.
Between 21 April 2014 and 30 May 2014, the parties engaged in adequate “meet and confer” communications and discussions without resolution of the dispute.
The present motion was filed on 30 May 2014.
Request For Judicial Notice
In support of its motion to compel further responses to RPD, plaintiff Madsen requests judicial notice of (1) the complaint in this action; (2) defendant Chrysler’s answer; and (3 – 11) various discovery orders in other cases. With regard to the pleadings, plaintiff Madsen’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (See Evid. Code, §452, subd. (d).) Evidence Code section 452 and 453 permit the trial court to “take judicial notice of the existence of judicial opinions and court documents, along with the truth of the results reached—in the documents such as orders, statements of decision, and judgments—but [the court] cannot take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in decisions or court files, including pleadings, affidavits, testimony, or statements of fact.” (People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448, 455.)
Under the same authority, the court may also take judicial notice of the various discovery orders submitted by plaintiff Madsen. Defendant Chrysler objects to the request to take judicial notice of these other discovery orders on the ground that they lack relevance and carry no precedential value. Defendant Chrysler’s objection is merited and the objection is SUSTAINED. “A court may take judicial notice of a court’s action, but may not use it to prove the truth of the facts found and recited.” (O’Neill v. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1405.) “[A] written trial court ruling has no precedential value.” (Santa Ana Hospital Med. Ctr. v. Belshe (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 819, 831.) Accordingly, with regard to the various discovery orders from other cases, plaintiff Madsen’s request for judicial notice is DENIED.
Analysis
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, a party propounding requests for production of documents may move for an order compelling a further response or production if it deems: (1) a statement of compliance is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; and/or (3) an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)
The party moving to compel has the initial burden of showing good cause for the discovery sought by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Although the scope of civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223. Discovery devices must be used as tools to facilitate litigation rather than as weapons to wage litigation. (Id. at p. 221.) For discovery purposes, information is “relevant to the subject matter” if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)
A party seeking to compel discovery must therefore set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); see Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 223. To establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.
Once the demanding party establishes good cause, then the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 98.)
This Court is somewhat startled by the following contained in Defendant’s opposition papers: “Immediately upon receipt of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Chrysler Group’s Early Resolution Program reviewed the relevant repair orders and, on 21 February 2014, offered to comply fully with the Song-Beverly Act and agreed to repurchase the subject vehicle. That offer was ignored. Chrysler Group then served a [Code of Civil Procedure, §] 998 offer, again agreeing to repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle and pay all of his reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.[3] This offer has also been ignored.” (Opposition papers, page 1, lines 14-18.)
The opposition papers further assert that Plaintiff did not communicate with Chrysler Group in any way until serving his initial discovery requests on 6 March 2014.
The reply papers do not contain any reference to the foregoing. Indeed, all the reply papers discuss is that all of the responses[4] were deficient but that Plaintiff was making an issue of only the nine requests which are the subjects of this motion “”in order to conserve judicial resources.” (Reply papers, page 3, lines 24-27.) This Court believes that judicial resources are not conserved when it is asked to rule on matters to which there is no ultimate issue.
Defendant takes the position that this motion is both unnecessary and improper. At this point, this Court is inclined to agree and finds that Plaintiff has not met his initial burden of showing good cause for the discovery sought by a fact-specific showing of relevance. As a result, the burden never shifted to Defendant to justify any objections to document disclosure.
Order
The motion of Plaintiff to compel Defendant Chrysler Group LLC to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of documents and for monetary sanctions is DENIED.
[1] Rule of Court 3.1345(d) states: “A motion concerning interrogatories, inspection demands, or admission requests must identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number.”
[2] In the interests of full disclosure, this Court will indicate that it is the owner of a 2010 Jeep Grand Cherokee without any mechanical issues. It also owns five other MoPar products and occasionally purchases copies of MoPar Muscle magazine.
[3] A copy of the offer to compromise is attached as Exhibit E to the Declaration of Joseph R. Wheeler contained in the opposition papers. The opposition papers themselves a row and easily refer to the exhibit as Exhibit D. (Opposition papers, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, page 3, lines 26-27.)
[4] Elsewhere in the papers is a reference that a total of 124 discovery devices were utilized by Plaintiff.
Link to this page