Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV25367, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25367    Hearing Date: September 28, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Plaintiff Robert Gray sues Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Does 1 through 10 pursuant to an August 5, 2022 Complaint alleging claims of (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty and (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty.

The claims arise from allegations that on March 6, 2020, Plaintiff entered a warranty contract with American Honda regarding a 2016 Honda Odyssey (Vehicle) and that during the warranty period, the Vehicle manifested defects and nonconformities that American Honda was unable to conform to warranty after a reasonable number of attempts.

On August 16, 2023, Plaintiff Gray moved to compel further responses from American Honda relating to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (RPDs, Set One) Nos. 19-23, 25-31, 45-46, and 48-49.

On September 14, 2023, American Honda opposed Plaintiff’s motion.

On September 20, 2023, Plaintiff Gray replied to the opposition.

Plaintiff Gray’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: MOOT, in Part; GRANTED, in Part; DENIED, in Part.

Plaintiff Gray initially brought this motion seeking to compel further responses from American Honda relating to RPDs, Set One, Nos. 19-23, 25-31, 45-46, and 48-49. (See Mot., p. 19.)

Following further production from American Honda on September 14, 2023, Plaintiff Gray has modified his request to only seek further production as to RPDs, Set One, Nos. 22-23 and 45-46. (Reply, p. 1.) Further production as to Request Nos. 19-21, 25-31, and 48-49 is thus MOOT.

I. RPDs, Set One, Nos. 22-23

After review, the Court determines that further production is warranted as to RPDs, Set One, Nos. 22-23.

Request No. 22 seeks: All training materials regarding the handling of consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase in California since 2020.

Request No. 23 seeks: All training materials for YOUR employees or agents tasked with determining whether a vehicle is eligible or a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2020.

Documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the SBA are relevant to determining whether purchase or replacement should have occurred. The relevancy determination is strengthened where the sought-after discovery is limited from the date of purchase (2020) to the present. These conclusions undercut American Honda’s objections that Request Nos. 22-23 are vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and outside the scope of discovery.

The Court disagrees with American Honda’s position that it has satisfied Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (c)(1), in relation to Request Nos. 22-23. American Honda qualified its responses to these production requests with, “[s]ubject to and without waiving these objections, assuming th[ese] request[s] [are] not directed to attorney-client communications, AHM [was] unable to comply with th[ese] request[s]” because American Honda could not locate responsive documents after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry. Such responses indicate to the Court that responsive documents have been held back based on the attorney-client privilege. However, American Honda fails to give sufficient information for the Court to determine that any such privilege exists. Since the request seeks training materials, it is unclear as to what attorney/client privilege American Honda may be referring to. If an attorney sends via email a training outline to a client along with some legal advice or representation, the email may well be subject to the attorney/client privilege; but the substance of the training, if then provided to the client’s employees, would likely not be. American Honda does not comply with its discovery obligations by conclusorily stating that a privilege exists because such a response does not provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of the alleged attorney-client privilege. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240 subd. (c)(1).)

Plaintiff’s motion is thus GRANTED as to Request Nos. 22-23, subject to the below instructions in the Conclusion.

II. RPDs, Set One, Nos. 45-46

After review, the Court determines that further production is warranted as to RPDs, Set One, No. 45 but not as to RPDs, Set One, No. 46.

Request No. 45 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS evidencing complaints by owners of 2016 Honda Odyssey vehicles regarding any of the complaints that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented to YOUR or YOUR authorized repair facilities for repair during the warranty period.”

All customer complaints relating to defects and nonconformities in 2016 Honda Odyssey vehicles that overlap with the same defects alleged in Plaintiff’s Vehicle are clearly relevant to American Honda’s knowledge of ongoing and uncurable defects and nonconformities in Plaintiff’s Vehicle. Such knowledge could affect a determination relating to whether repurchase or replacement should have been more seriously contemplated by American Honda. If American Honda had knowledge of ongoing defects it was not able to conform to warranty in 2016 Honda Odyssey vehicles generally and those same defects arose and were not curable in Plaintiff’s Vehicle, and if American Honda nevertheless failed to replace or repurchase Plaintiff’s Vehicle, the sought-after civil penalties sought by Plaintiff could be justified. As such, the information is relevant.

American Honda’s argument that “[a] plaintiff need not look beyond his own service history and personal experience with his vehicle to know if the repairs have been successful” is not convincing. The Complaint alleges that the defects and nonconformities in the Vehicle were not brought up to warranty after a reasonable number of attempts. (Complaint, ¶ 19.) Service history beyond Plaintiff’s Vehicle but limited to 2016 Honda Odyssey vehicles could show that American Honda knew that the defects alleged to have existed in Plaintiff’s Vehicle were widespread and not curable, thus in turn affecting a determination on replacement or repurchase.

Plaintiff’s motion is thus GRANTED as to Request No. 45, subject to the below instructions in the Conclusion.

However, Request No. 46 is overbroad.

Request No. 46 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS evidencing warranty repairs to 2016 Honda Odyssey vehicles regarding any of the components that YOU or YOUR authorized repair facilities performed repairs on under warranty.”

Unlike Request No. 45, Request No. 46 does not limit itself to the type of nonconformities alleged to have arisen in Plaintiff’s Vehicle. Such failure to particularize this request makes it overbroad.

Plaintiff’s motion is thus DENIED as to Request No. 46.

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 sanctions are not merited at this time. The parties have been able to resolve a number of their disputes as of September 14, 2023. The parties have also advanced meritorious arguments both ways, with Plaintiff’s motion granted as to Request Nos. 22-23 and 45 but denied as to Request No. 46. Under these circumstances, imposition of sanctions would be unjust.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Robert Gray’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One, from Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is MOOT, in Part, GRANTED, in Part, and DENIED, in Part, as follows:

(1) MOOT as to RPDs, Set One, Nos. 19-21, 25-31, and 48-49.

(2) GRANTED as to RPDs, Set One, Nos. 22-23 and 45.

(3) DENIED as to RPDs, Set One, No. 46.

The Court ORDERS American Honda to make further production as to RPDs, Set One, Nos. 22-23 and 45 within 21 days of this ruling.

If American Honda is claiming attorney-client privilege over any further production, it shall provide a privilege log complying with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240 subdivision (c)(1) including the date of the document, the kind of document (e.g., email, letter, etc.) the author, the recipient, and the general topic of the document or other basis for claiming the privilege.

Plaintiff Robert Gray’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.