Ashley Loza vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing

34-2022-00329635-CU-BC-GDS: Ashley Loza vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 05/29/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 53

or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Ashley and John Loza’s motion to compel Defendant American Honda Motors Co., Inc.’s further responses to form interrogatories (set one) is ruled upon as follows.

This Lemon Law action arises out of Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2017 Honda Pilot (the “Vehicle”). Plaintiff bring a cause of action for violations of the Song-Beverly Act— breach of express warranty. Plaintiffs allege the Vehicle’s transmission is defective.

At issue on this motion is Defendant’s response to form interrogatory (“FROG”) no. 15.1 Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s response is deficient.

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that [...] [a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete ..[or] [a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (CCP § 2030.300(a)(1), (3). Evasive and incomplete responses violate the responding party's duty to provide responses that are “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (CCP § 2030.220(a).)

FROG 15.1

The motion is granted. FROG 15.1 asks for identification of each denial of a material allegation and each affirmative defense and for the facts, witnesses and documents supporting any denial and affirmative defense. Defendant’s response contains various boilerplate objections. Subject to the objections Defendant stated that it set forth various denials and affirmative defenses so that they would not be waived. Defendant stated that its investigation is ongoing.

Defendant’s response is insufficient. Defendant’s answer asserts 27 affirmative defenses yet Defendant failed to identify the defenses as required by FROG 15.1 and also failed to identify any facts, documents and witnesses supporting the defenses. This FROG relates to Defendant’s own affirmative defenses and denials. Defendant may not simply decline to provide a response regarding its own defenses and denials because Defendant has yet to conduct discovery. Defendant must provide a substantive response to this interrogatory. Defendant must answer the interrogatory with the information available and if Defendant does not have the necessary information, the response must state that, and Defendant must make a reasonable and good faith effort

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329635-CU-BC-GDS: Ashley Loza vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 05/29/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 53

to obtain any information necessary. (CCP § 2030.220.) Thus, irrespective of Defendant’s objections, Defendant has not supplied any factual information at all.

Defendant contends in opposition that Plaintiffs failed to show good cause for a further response. However, unlike motions to compel further responses to requests for production, the statute allowing Plaintiffs to make this motion does not require a threshold showing of good cause by the requesting party for a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.300.) In any event there is certainly good cause for Plaintiffs to seek a further response regarding Defendant’s own affirmative defenses.

The Court notes that Plaintiffs did not challenge the objections, nor did Defendant substantiate any of its objections as a basis to withhold entirely any factual responses (as it was Defendant’s burden to support any objections) and thus the Court need not make and makes no ruling on the objections.

No later than June 12, 2025, Defendant shall provide a further verified response to FROG no. 15.1.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied as the notice failed to comply with CCP § 2023.040 which requires that “[a] request for sanctions shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (CCP § 2023.040.) The notice of motion does not identify any person, party, or attorney against who sanctions were sought in the notice of motion.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is denied as Plaintiffs’ motion was substantially justified.

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

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.