Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV07214, Date: 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07214    Hearing Date: March 13, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

MOVING PARTY:              Plaintiff Jessica Castillo.

OPPOSITION:                      Defendant FCA US LLC.

REPLY:                                 Plaintiff Jessica Castillo.

Background Allegations

Plaintiff Jessica Castillo sues Defendant FCA US LLC pursuant to three Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“lemon law”) claims—breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and failure to repair—on the grounds that the 2018 Dodge Durango (“Subject Vehicle”) purchased by Plaintiff on November 11, 2018 and manufactured by Defendant FCA US was delivered to Plaintiff with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to, electrical, suspension, transmission, engine and structural system defects, which FCA-approved repair facilities were not able to rectify within the statutorily prescribed or reasonable time.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff Castillo’s September 28, 2022 Motion to Compel Further Responses to her August 8, 2022 Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 3, 5, 9, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37, which is opposed by Defendant FCA US LLC.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production: GRANTED, in Part.

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) g         ood 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 (1) ESI is reasonably accessible or (2) there is good cause for production of the ESI regardless of its accessibility (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (e)).

Analysis

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

Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) shall produce:

1)      The “Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual” published by Defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, from date of purchase to present.

2)      Any and all Recall Notices and Technical Service Bulletins concerning the subject vehicle.  Defendant is not required to do so a search of emails.

3)      Any customer complaints relating to defects alleged in plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle.

4)      All documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from date of purchase to present.

5)      Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

6)      Communications with dealer, factory representative and/or call center concerning the subject vehicle.

7)      Warranty Claims submitted to and/or approved by Defendant concerning the subject vehicle.

All other requests for further production are DENIED.

Defendant shall provide verified supplemental responses in compliance with this order within 45 days of this order.

Production may be subject to a protective order modelled on those located on the court’s website.

The Court does not award sanctions as it finds both sides acted with substantial justification.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Jessica Castillo’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production is GRANTED in Part.