Cortazo vs. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 245, 255.

Prior to filing such a motion, the moving party must meet and confer with the responding party in a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve each issue that would be presented by the motion. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(b); § 2016.040.

Because Defendant served supplemental responses, the court might find that the motion is moot, denying the motion on that basis and leaving Plaintiff to meet and confer further on the supplemental responses and bring a new motion. But the court can also proceed if that is feasible.

In Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, the court ruled that service of untimely discovery responses did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to hear the motion to compel responses. Id. at 396. The court noted that it remains within the trial court’s discretion whether to proceed with the motion when a response is served after the motion to compel has been filed. Id. 405-07.

Form Interrogatories Plaintiff moved to compel a further response to form interrogatory no. 15.1. Defendant has served a supplemental response to that interrogatory and Plaintiff has not contended that the supplemental response is insufficient. Accordingly, the motion substantively moot.

Special Interrogatories Plaintiff moved to compel further responses to special interrogatory nos. 30, 42, and 43. Defendant served supplemental responses to nos. 42 and 43. Plaintiff has not contended that these supplemental responses are insufficient. Accordingly, the motion is moot as to these special interrogatories.

Defendant did not, however, serve a supplemental response to special interrogatory no. 30, so it remains in issue.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Did the person(s) that evaluated the repurchase request for the SUBJECT VEHICLE have access to the warranty repair rates for the components that were the subject of warranty claims in the SUBJECT VEHICLE?

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30: VWGoA objects to this interrogatory on grounds that it is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, vague as to time, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence, and impermissibly compound or conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060(f).

Defendant has not justified these objections, which on their face are not merited. Rather, Defendant asks the court to limit discovery. [See Defendant’s Separate Statement (ROA #142(at 4-5.] For such relief, Defendant needed to bring a motion for protective order.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs did not meet and confer sufficiently and in good faith. The court disagrees.

The motion to compel further response as to special interrogatory no. 30 is granted.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs Where there has been a response to RFPs that the propounding party finds inadequate, then the Code provides for a motion and order compelling production upon a showing of good cause, prior meeting and conferring, and the filing of a separate statement. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1) and (2); CRC 3.1345; Cal. Prac. Guide, Civil Procedure before Trial §8:1494.1.

In order to meet the burden of showing good cause, the moving party must show: (1) relevance to the subject matter and (2) specific facts justifying discovery. Weil & Brown, Cal. Civ. Proc. Before Trial, 8:1495.6 (The Rutter Group 2011). Declarations are generally used to show good cause, and they must contain specific facts and not mere conclusions. Id. at 8:1495.7. If the moving party demonstrates good cause, then the opposing party must justify any objections. Kirkland v Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 92, 98.

Plaintiff moved to compel further responses to RFP nos. 18, 33, 34, 45, and 46. Defendant served supplemental responses to nos. 18, 33,, 45 and 46. Plaintiff has not contended that these responses are insufficient. Accordingly, the motion is moot as to these RFPs.

Defendant did not, however, serve a supplemental response to RFP no. 34, so it remains in issue.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: All Recalls that have been issued for the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: VWGoA objects on grounds that Plaintiffs have not designated the items being sought for production by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item (CCP § 2031.030 (c)(1)). VWGoA also objects to this request on grounds that it is overbroad and thus not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as stated. VWGoA further objects on grounds that it is invasive of the trade secret privilege and seeks confidential and proprietary business information, disclosure of which could damage VWGoA's competitive position in the marketplace. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, VWGoA will produce herewith any recalls pertaining to any warranty repairs performed on the subject vehicle during Plaintiffs' ownership thereof. See Exhibit G.

Plaintiffs address good cause in their separate statement. [See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement (ROA # 83) at 2, 7, 8; Thomas Decl. (ROA #87).]

Again, Defendant objects that Plaintiffs did not meet and confer sufficiently. Defendant does not attempt to justify its objections or its response.

The motion to compel further response a to RFP no. 34 is granted.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFAs After receiving responses to requests for admission that a party finds evasive or incomplete a party may move for further responses. Code Civ. Proc. §2033.290(a). The motion must be accompanied by a declaration showing a good faith attempt to meet and confer and a separate statement. Code Civ. Proc. §2033.290(b).

Plaintiff moved to compel further response to RFA nos. 13 and 14. Defendant served supplemental responses to both of these RFAs. Plaintiff has not contended these supplemental responses are insufficient.

Accordingly, the motion substantively moot.

Plaintiff to give notice.