Angela Perez v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.

Angela Perez v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 26CVP-0095

Hearing: Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Admitted

Date: August 18, 2026

Angela Perez (Plaintiff) filed this lemon law action on March 16, 2026, against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (VWGoA) and Community Automotive Group, Inc., dba Community Volkswagen (Community Volkswagen). The dispute concerns Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2024 Volkswagen Jetta Sedan (the Subject Vehicle) on June 12, 2024. The complaint alleges defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested during the warranty period. (Cmp., ¶ 17.)

On May 27, 2026, Plaintiff propounded on VWGoA: (1) Requests for Production of Documents; (2) Form Interrogatories; (3) Special Interrogatories; and (4) Requests for Admissions. (Thomas Decs., ¶ 6.)

Now before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to discovery and for sanctions against VWGoA and its counsel. VWGoA opposes. The motions will be granted in part.

VWGoA’s responses were due June 30, 2026, but as of the filing of the motions, VWGoA has not provided responses. (Thomas Decs., ¶¶ 8, 9.) On June 30, 2026, VWGoA requested a twoweek extension to provide its discovery responses, which Plaintiff’s counsel granted making VWGoA’s deadline July 14, 2026. (Id., ¶ 8.)

On August 5, 2026, VWGoA filed its oppositions to the motions. VWGoA reports it “is finalizing its verified responses and anticipates serving those responses prior to the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion.” (Opp., p. 3, ll. 19-20, see Wafer Dec., ¶ 8.) VWGoA contends monetary sanctions are unjust and unwarranted, particularly given the circumstances surrounding its conduct, including VWGoA’s anticipated service of discovery responses. VWGoA also disputes Plaintiff’s characterization of the two-week extension.

Specifically, “Plaintiff did not simply grant that request. Instead, Plaintiff proposed a conditional extension requiring Defendant to provide informal document production on an accelerated schedule. Defendant promptly advised Plaintiff that it required the full requested extension and expressly requested confirmation as to whether Plaintiff would agree to those terms. Plaintiff never responded to Defendant’s final communication.” (Opp., p. 2, ll. 8-12.)

All that need be shown for purposes of a motion to compel initial responses is that the discovery was properly served; that the time to respond has expired; and that no response of any kind has been served. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2026) ¶ 8:1140; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (b) [demand for inspection].) Plaintiff has made that showing here. The Court intends to grant

the motion to compel discovery, unless VWGoA serves the required responses by the date of the hearing.

With respect to a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 subdivision (b) for an order deeming the requests for admission admitted, “[t]he court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Absent confirmation that substantially compliant responses have been served prior to the hearing, the motion to deem the requests for admission admitted, will be granted.

Plaintiff moves for sanctions in the amount of $6,330.00 against VWGoA and his counsel for filing these motions. Plaintiff, however, has reduced the amount sought, as set forth in her combined reply. Plaintiff’s request is supported by the declarations from its counsel, Phil Thomas. The declarations state that Mr. Thomas’s hourly rate is $525.00. Plaintiff now seeks a total of $2,970.00 in monetary sanctions, comprised of $1,890.00 for preparation of four motions to compel at $472.50 each, $315.00 for preparation of a combined reply, $525.00 for time to review any tentative rulings and to prepare for and attend the hearing, and $240.00 for the fees to file the motions. 1

Mr. Thomas’s declaration does not establish the reasonableness of the requested hourly rate for San Luis Obispo County, nor does it detail Mr. Thomas’s experience or qualifications to support that rate.

A party may retain an attorney from a city with billable rates that exceed the usual rate for legal service in the community where they have made a good faith but unsuccessful effort to find local counsel. (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 397-399 [higher out of town rate proper for lodestar calculation where party submitted declaration that he tried to find local counsel and was wholly unsuccessful.]) Plaintiff provides no evidence that an attorney with similar experience or capabilities to Plaintiff’s counsel could not be found or retained locally. Thus, the Court finds that there is no basis for applying an hourly rate higher than those usually charged within this community. The Court will set counsel’s hourly rate at $400 per hour.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted in part. The Court reduces the time claimed upon finding that the motions are straightforward and substantially identical, differing only in the law applicable to the respective discovery methods. Plaintiff is awarded reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,440, representing 3.6 hours of time at an hourly rate of $400.00. This total comprises 2.0 hours for the preparation of the moving papers, 0.6 hours for the reply, and 1.0 hour for appearance at the hearing. The Plaintiff is additionally awarded $240.00 for the motion filing fees.

1 Plaintiff contends that the total amount requested is $2,982.00; however, the figures add up to sanctions totaling $2,970.00. (Reply, p. 2, l. 18.)

Monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,680 are awarded in favor of Plaintiff and against VWGoA and his counsel, jointly and severally. “The amount of monetary sanctions is limited to the ‘reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees’ that a party incurred as a result of the discovery abuse. (§ 2023.030(a), italics added.) The principle of reasonableness means a trial court has discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs requested as a discovery sanction in order to reach a reasonable award. [Citation.]” (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare REIT, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.) VWGoA and his counsel shall pay that amount within thirty (30) days.

3