2017-00218831-CU-BC

Tim R. Hunter vs. FCA US, LLC

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories

Filed By: Hanson, John W.

Plaintiff Tim Hunter’s motion to compel Defendant FCA US, LLC’s further responses to form interrogatories is granted as set forth below.

In this Lemon Law action involving a 2015 Chrysler 200 which Plaintiff alleges had engine defects (transmission shifting problems/stalling), Plaintiff seeks to compel FCA’s further responses to form interrogatories 12.1, 15.1 and 17.1.

At the outset, FCA’s contention that it served supplemental responses has no bearing on the outcome of the instant motion. Service of responses after the motion was filed

does not moot the motion. Plaintiff is still entitled to an order. To be clear, a motion is “made” when it is filed and served. (CCP § 1005.5.) The Court expresses no opinion regarding the sufficiency of any further responses served after the motion was filed.

The Court would note that FCA’s opposition focuses, at least in part, on Plaintiff’s requests for production though this motion is to compel relates to the form interrogatories.

12.1

Granted. This interrogatory simply asks FCA to identify by name, address, and phone number, the witnesses regarding the subject incident. Contrary to the vagueness and overbreadth objections by FCA, the incident was defined with respect to the specific warranty regarding the subject vehicle and the performance under the warranty by FCA and its authorized representatives. FCA’s response fails to identify and specific individuals and instead refers generally to employees of authorized-dealers who serviced the vehicle. FCA must make a good faith to at least attempt to identify specific individuals. If after a reasonable and good faith investigation, FCA is not able to identify specific individuals it shall say so in a further response. (CCP § 2030.220
(c).)

Further, while FCA’s opposition indicates that it identified documents from which information could be obtained, there is no such reference to any documents in the responses to 12.1 nor is there any reference to CCP § 2030.230 which, in certain circumstances allows a party to respond to interrogatories by specifying the writings from which the answer may be derived. The Court would note, however, a broad statement that the information is available from a mass of documents is insufficient.” ( Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 784.)

FCA also objected that the interrogatory calls for information protected by the attorney work-product doctrine though it fails to justify this objection in opposition. In any event, an interrogatory “is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation of in preparation for trial.” (CCP § 2030.010(b).)

15.1

Granted, in part. This interrogatory asked FCA to state all facts supporting each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense. FCA’s response raised no objections but contained a general statement denying that the subject vehicle exhibited a defect covered by the warranty. However, it is not clear whether this statement is intended to address denials and affirmative defenses given that FCA asserted 18 affirmative defenses in the answer. A further response must be provided.

FCA’s general reference to unnamed service employees is deficient for the same reasons discussed above.

However, FCA’s reference to the dealer repair records, its warranty claim records and additional correspondence is sufficient for purposes of identifying the documents on which its denials/affirmative defenses are based.

17.1

Granted. This interrogatory asked FCA for all facts, witnesses and documents for each response to Plaintiff’s requests for admission that was not an unqualified admission. FCA’s response which simply referred Plaintiff to its responses to the RFAs is entirely non-responsive and did not provide any of the information requested in the interrogatory. A further response must be provided.

The Court rejects the claim that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer. Plaintiff’s counsel sent correspondence specifically discussing these three form interrogatories. Indeed, FCA’s counsel’s meet and confer response addressed these interrogatories as well.

(Hanson Decl. Exh. 2.) Admittedly, the meet and confer could have been more extensive, but the Court will not deny the motion based on a failure to meet and confer.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. The Court finds that sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances, especially in light of the minimal meet and confer efforts.

No later than March 20, 2018, FCA shall provide further verified responses to form interrogatories 12.1, 15.1 and 17.1 consistent with the above.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to immediately provide notice to Defendants’ counsel of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event Defendant’s counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).