Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV11833, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 22STCV11833    Hearing Date: November 17, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Pleadings

Plaintiff Jacqueline M. Aiche sues Defendants Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz of Beverly Hills, and Does 1 through 10 pursuant to an April 7, 2022 Complaint alleging claims of (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty, (3) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2, and (4) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.22 – Tanner Consumer Protection Act.

The claims arise from allegations that on August 7, 2021, Plaintiff Aiche purchased a new 2021 Mercedes-Benz G63 from Mercedes-Benz of Arcadia and that the sale was accompanied by statutory warranties from Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, which were breached when the vehicle was delivered with serious defects and nonconformities that Mercedes-Benz of Beverly Hills was unable to conform to warranty within a reasonable number of attempts.

Motion Before the Court

On May 23, 2022, Plaintiff served her first set of requests for production (RPDs, Set One) on Mercedes-Benz USA.

On June 24, 2022, Mercedes-Benz USA provided responses to RPDs, Set One.

On July 14, 2023, the Court held an informal discovery conference, including as to further responses/production to RPDs, Set One. The parties failed to reach any stipulations but agreed that any motions to compel would be filed within 30 days.

On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff Aiche filed a motion to compel further responses from Mercedes-Benz USA to Aiche’s RPDs, Set One, Nos. 13-16 and 34-35. The motion also seeks monetary sanctions.

On November 3, 2023, Mercedes-Benz USA opposed the motion.

On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff Aiche replied to the opposition.

Plaintiff Aiche’s motion 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.

RPDs, Set One, No. 13 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS IDENTIFYING repurchases made by YOU of the 2021 Mercedes-Benz G63, vehicles and allegedly containing any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU for repair. (For purposes of this request, the term ‘IDENTIFYING’ seeks documents establishing the name of the complaining PERSON, the complaints made by such PERSON(S), the names of any lawyers involved as well as case names, court numbers, and locations and whether such repurchase was voluntary or pursuant to a court order.)

RPDs, Set One, No. 14 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS evidencing, relating, or referring to complaints by owners of the 2021 Mercedes-Benz G63 vehicle regarding any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.”

RPDs, Set One, No. 15 seeks: “All surveys, reports, summaries, or other DOCUMENTS in which owners of the 2021 Mercedes-Benz G63, vehicle have reported to YOU problems with any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair. (For example, YOU survey YOUR new car buyers. If any of the survey responses refer to the above-listed conditions, defects, or nonconformities, Plaintiffs request these DOCUMENTS be produced.)”

RPDs, Set One, No. 16 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, relate, or refer to the numbers of owners of the 2021 Mercedes-Benz G63 vehicle who have complained of any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.”

RPDs, Set One, No. 34 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to technical service bulletins which have been issued for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

RPDs, Set One, No. 35 seeks: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to recalls which have been issued for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

In her motion, Plaintiff Aiche refers to her separate statement to support further responses/production to RPDs, Set One, Nos. 13-16 and 34-35. (Mot., p. 4.)

In her separate statement, Plaintiff Aiche challenges the June 24, 2022 objections by Mercedes-Benz USA, including by arguing that RPDs, Set One, Nos. 13-16 and 34-35 involve discovery requests that are relevant, even if they relate to discovery relating to vehicles other than the Subject Vehicle here at issue. Plaintiff argues that this discovery is necessary to rebut affirmative defenses arguing Plaintiff misused the Vehicle. Plaintiff also argues that the discovery could show Mercedes-Benz USA’s knowledge of defects and a wrongful failure to repurchase the Vehicle. (Mot., Sep. St., pp. 2-15.)

In opposition, Mercedes-Benz USA argues that it has already produced the information and documents that might be relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding Plaintiff’s vehicle and Plaintiff's claims. Mercedes-Benz USA argues that Plaintiff demands irrelevant evidence regarding other consumers, the handling of other complaints, and other customer’s repurchase requests, all of which are unrelated to Plaintiff’s specific claims. Mercedes-Benz USA argues that Plaintiff’s motion is devoid of any accurate “factual evidence” necessary to show good cause or other justification for the class action style discovery that the Plaintiff seeks. Mercedes-Benz USA argues that there is no requirement anywhere either in statutory or case law that entitles Plaintiff to documents about vehicles other than their own or that requires Mercedes-Benz USA to produce any such documents and that a plaintiff need not look beyond his own service history and personal experience with the vehicle to know if the repairs have been successful. Mercedes-Benz USA argues that the discovery requests would impose an undue burden on Mercedes-Benz USA, are overbroad, and touch upon the attorney-client and work product privileges. (Opp’n, pp. 3-9.)

Mercedes-Benz USA’s separate statement responses all state: “See Opposition filed/served herewith[;] MBUSA’s response is sufficient under the Code.” (Opp’n, Sep. St.)

The objections to RPDs, Set One, Nos. 13-16 and 34-35 include that the request seeks privileged documents and the requests are vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. (Opp’n, Sep. St.)

In reply, Plaintiff argues that the information sought by Plaintiff’s Requests is relevant because it would tend to show whether a defect or nonconformity exists in these types of vehicles and when this defect or nonconformity first arose, thus implying a willful failure to repurchase or replace. Plaintiff also argues that Mercedes-Benz USA has failed to substantiate its objections and has wrongfully refused to consider the RPDs here at issue. (Reply, pp. 3-7.)

The Court finds as follows.

RPDs, Set One, No. 13 is irrelevant and overbroad. It seeks contact information relating to individuals who owned vehicles with similar nonconformities. However, the identity and contact information of those individuals is irrelevant insofar as what Plaintiff really seeks are records showing that Mercedes-Benz USA logged consumer complaints and had knowledge of an uncurable defect.

However, RPDs, Set One, Nos. 14-16 are clearly relevant. The information requested by these RPDs could be relevant to a determination that Mercedes-Benz USA had knowledge of defects it could not conform to warranty in Plaintiff’s vehicle during the relevant warranty period. Such evidence could assist make a determination of civil penalties under Code of Civil Procedure section 1794, subdivision (c). To the extent that the RPDs involve any privileged matter, Mercedes-Benz USA should draft a privilege log pursuant to Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 291, fn. 6.

Further discovery as to RPDs, Set One, Nos. 34-35 was accepted by the opposition and is thus permissible. (Opp’n, p. 3 [“In the spirit of good faith, although the requests are broad and vague MBUSA will supplement Requests 34 and 35 in addition to the documents we have already produced.”].)

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Aiche’s motion for further responses, in Part, specifically as to RPDs, Set One, 14-16 and 34-35.

Sanctions: DENIED.

Except in certain circumstances involving electronic stored information, the court must impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

Here, the Court determines that the parties both advanced arguments for why the scope of discovery in lemon law claims should be limited to discovery of the condition of the subject vehicle and not similar nonconformities in vehicles of similar make and model or components.

Accordingly, sanctions are DENIED.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Jacqueline M. Aiche’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Set One, is GRANTED, in Part, and DENIED, in Part, as follows:

(1) DENIED as to RPDs, Set One, No. 13; and

(2) GRANTED as to PRDs, Set One, Nos. 14-16, 34-35.

Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is ORDERED to produce discovery in relation to the production requests within 21 days of this order.

To the extent that Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC raises privilege objections, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC SHALL provide a corresponding privilege log consistent with Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 291, fn. 6.

Plaintiff Jacqueline M. Aiche’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.