Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV32228, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32228    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: 40

-Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Plaintiff Ahmad Chiha sues Defendants Aston Martin Lagonda of North America, Inc. (Defendant or Aston Martin Lagonda) and Does 1 through 100 pursuant to an August 31, 2021 Complaint alleging three lemon law claims: (1) Breach of Implied Warranty; (2) Breach of Express Warranty; and (3) Violation of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act [Refund-or-Replace Provision]. The claims arise from allegations that Plaintiff Chiha purchased a new 2021 Aston Martin DB11 (Vehicle) subject to an express warranty from Defendant Aston Martin Lagonda but that at the time the Vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff, it was not in merchantable condition, was not safe, and did not conform to the quality and safety guidelines for a new motor vehicle—i.e., had multiple manufacturer defects, defects in assembly, design defects, and other defects—and that, despite a reasonable number of attempts, Aston Martin Lagonda was unable to conform the Vehicle to express warranty.

On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel served on Defendant a set of Requests for Production of Documents.

On February 6, 2023, Defendant served responses thereto.

Between February 8 and 28, 2023, the parties met and conferred regarding further production as to some of the requests served by Plaintiff on Defendant.

On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff Chiha made this motion to compel further production as to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1, 3, 5, 17, 31, and 37 through 75.

On April 19, 2023, Defendant Aston Martin Lagonda opposed the March 28th motion.

On April 25, 2023, Plaintiff Chiha replied to the April 19th opposition.

The motion to compel further production is now before the Court.

Motion to Compel Further Production

Legal Standard

A motion to compel a further response is used when a party gives unsatisfactory answers or makes untenable objections to interrogatories, demands to produce, or requests for admission. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) To request further production, a movant must establish: (1) good cause for the production (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Sinaiko, supra, at p. 403); and (2) that a further response is needed because (a) the responding party’s statement of compliance with the demand to produce is incomplete Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1)), (b) the responding party’s representation that it is unable to comply is inadequate, complete, or evasive (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(2)), (c) the responding party’s objection in the response is without merit or is too general (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(3); Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1127), or (d) if the responding party objected to the production of ESI on the ground that it is not reasonably accessible the movant can show that the (i) ESI is reasonably accessible or (ii) there is good cause for production of the ESI regardless of its accessibility (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (e)).

Order Compelling Further Production: GRANTED in Part; DENIED in Part.

The Court finds that while some of Plaintiff’s discovery requests are reasonable, other portions are overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Court thus GRANTS this motion, in Part, and orders the following discovery order:

Defendant Aston Martin Lagonda shall produce:

(1) All already-not-produced repair orders including the front and back of each page, any handwritten notes, any hard cards, and accounting copies regarding, pertaining, or relating to the Vehicle in this action and no other vehicles—regardless of make and model (see Mot., Separate Statement, RPD No. 1; see also Opp’n, p. 5);

(2) All already-not-produced warranty repair documents regarding, pertaining, or relating to the Vehicle in this action and no other vehicles—regardless of make and model (see Mot., Separate Statement, RPD No. 3; see also Opp’n, p. 5);

(3) All already-not-produced warranty documents applicable to the Vehicle in this action and no other vehicles—regardless of make and model (see Mot., Separate Statement, RPD No. 5; see also Opp’n, p. 5);

(4) All already-not-produced documents including but not limited to manuals, publications, directives, and direct dealer notifications or advisements regarding, pertaining, or relating to handling warranty repairs on the Vehicle in this action and no other vehicles regardless of make and model (see Mot., Separate Statement, RPD No. 17; see also Opp’n, pp. 8-12); and

(5) All already-not-produced documents relating to the Customer Call Center, including but not limited to, all flow charts, processes, and/or scripts, but only insofar as such documents relate to the Vehicle in this action and no other vehicles regardless of make and model (see Mot., Separate Statement, RPD No. 31; see also Opp’n, pp. 8-12).

Plaintiff’s motion is otherwise DENIED, in Part, i.e., as to further production related to RPD Nos. 37-75.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Ahmad Chiha’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1, 3, 5, 17, 31, and 37 through 75 is GRANTED in Part and DENIED in Part:

(1) GRANTED as to further production of Request Nos. 1, 3, 5, 17, and 31 as limited above; and

(2) DENIED as to further production of Request Nos. 37-75.

Defendant Aston Martin Lagonda is ORDERED TO PROVIDE supplemental production in conformity with this order WITHIN 15 DAYS of notice of this order.