Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV13188, Date: 2024-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13188    Hearing Date: March 20, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

Plaintiff Jesus Castro sues Defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (AHM) and Does 1 through 10 pursuant to a June 9, 2023, Complaint alleging claims of (1) Violation of Subdivision (d) of Civil Code Section 1793.2, (2) Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civil Code Section 1793.2, (3) Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2, (4) Breach of Express Written Warranty, Civil Code Section 1791.2 Subdivision (a); Section 1794; and (5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Civil Code Section 1791.1; Section 1794.

The claims arise from the following allegations. On September 5, 2021, Plaintiff purchased a 2018 Honda Pilot (Vehicle) that was manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant AHM. Plaintiff received an express written warranty in which Defendant AHM undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the Vehicle or to provide compensation if there was a failure in utility or performance for a specified period of time. After Plaintiff took possession of the Vehicle and during the warranty period, the Vehicle contained or developed defects that substantially impaired the use, safety, and/or value of the Vehicle, including defective body, powertrain, safety, electrical, braking, and noise systems. Plaintiff provided Defendant AHM sufficient opportunity to service or repair the Vehicle, but AHM was unable or failed to service or repair the Vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts and did not promptly replace or repurchase the Vehicle.

B. Motion Before the Court

On August 30, 2023, Plaintiff Castro served Request for Production of Documents (RPDs), Set One, on Defendant AHM.

On October 3, 2023, Defendant AHM electronically served objection-only responses to RPDs, Set One.

Between August 30, 2023, and November 14, 2023, Plaintiff sent various meet and confer letters to AHM’s counsel, in which Plaintiff’s counsel sought to confer about electronically stored information (ESI) involved in RPDs, Set One, AHM’s objections and arguments related to arbitration, and the narrowing of databases involved in the ESI production at issue.

AHM’s counsel did not provide a response to those communications, nor did AHM produce any documents in response to RPDs, Set One—a position not disputed by the evidentiary facts stated in the declaration of counsel attached to the opposing papers before the Court.

As a result, on November 20, 2023, Plaintiff Castro filed a motion to compel further responses to RPDs, Set One, Nos. 16-21.

On March 7, 2024, AHM filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.

On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff Castro filed a reply to AHM’s opposition.

Plaintiff Castro’s motion is now before the Court.

II. Motion to Compel Further Production: GRANTED.

A. 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)).

B. Analysis

1. Production Requests at Issue

RPDs, Set One, defines “[t]he term ‘POWERTRAIN DEFECT’ … to mean such defects [that] result in symptoms including, but not limited to: display of ‘transmission system problem’ warning; malfunction of torque converter; torque converter clutch circuit performance failure; transmission fluid leak; defective transmission case; premature failure of transmission; clicking noise; knocking noise; corroded exhaust components; failure of catalytic converter; faulty fuel injectors; DTC P0430; DTC P219A; TSB #16-087; TSB 21-010; and any other concern identified in the repair history for the subject 2018 Honda Pilot; Vehicle Identification Number 5FNYF6H7XJB005957.”

RPDs, Set One, No. 16 requests: “All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any internal analysis or investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding the POWERTRAIN DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This request shall be interpreted to include, but not be limited to, any such investigation to determine the root cause of such POWERTRAIN DEFECT, any such investigation to design a permanent repair procedure for such POWERTRAIN DEFECT, any such investigation into the failure rates of parts associated with such POWERTRAIN DEFECT, any cost analysis for implementing a proposed repair procedures, any savings analysis not implementing a proposed repair procedures, etc.]”

RPDs, Set One, No. 17 requests: “All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any communications YOU have had regarding POWERTRAIN DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

RPDs, Set One, No. 18 requests: “All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and recalls concerning the POWERTRAIN DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

RPDs, Set One, No. 19 requests: “All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to POWERTRAIN DEFECT, in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including but not limited to any databases in YOUR possession with information from dealers, service departments, parts departments, or warranty departments, and all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim or reported failure.”

RPDs, Set One, No. 20 requests: “All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning failure rates of vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE as a result of POWERTRAIN DEFECT.”

RPDs, Set One, No. 21 requests: “All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any fixes for POWERTRAIN DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

(Mot., Separate Statement, pp. 2, 3, 12, 21, 29, 38, 47.)

2. AHM’s Objections

AHM’s objections generally fall into the following categories:

(1) Vagueness, ambiguity, overbreadth, undue burden, harassment, and asking for information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence;

(2) Information as to other vehicle of the same year, make, and model is irrelevant where this action involves failure to conform Plaintiff’s Vehicle, no other vehicles, to warranty (RPDs, Set One, Nos. 16-20 only);

(3) “Powertrain defect” is ambiguous and overly broad as defined in the production requests;

(4) The overbreadth of the requests fails to meet the reasonable particularity required from Code of Civil Procedure          section 2031.030, subdivision (c)(1);

(5) The requests involve confidential, commercially sensitive, and proprietary information or trade secrets;

(6) The requests seek to have AHM respond on behalf of another entity;

(7) AHM filed a motion to compel arbitration and for a stay in this action, as set for hearing on January 11, 2024;

(8) The attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or the premature discovery of information and materials to be provided by an expert witness pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210 et seq. (RPDs, Set One, No. 17 only);

(9) The right to privacy (RPDs, Set One, Nos. 19-20 only); and or

(10) Argumentative and assumes a defect (RPDs, Set One, No. 21 only).

(See Mot., Separate Statement, pp. 3-4 ,12-13, 21-22, 30, 38-39, 47.)

3. Merits of Objections and Production

a. RPDs, Set One, Nos. 16, 18, 21

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to RPDs, Set One, because Defendant AHM has agreed to production relating to these requests, and the reply does not indicate that production has been made to date. (Opp’n, pp. 2-3; Reply.)

b. RPDs, Set One, Nos. 17, 19, 20

Plaintiff’s motion is also GRANTED as to RPDs, Set One, Nos. 17, 19, 20.

These requests are summarized above in Section II.B.1. They are relevant to whether AHM had knowledge of nonconformable defects in the powertrain system in the Vehicle, based on knowledge of similar nonconformable defects in the powertrain systems of vehicles of the same year, make, and model.

The Song-Beverly Act provides for civil penalties through two separate means: (1) where the manufacturer’s non-compliance with the Act is willful (i.e., intentional violation of the Act); and (2) penalties where the manufacturer violates its express warranty obligations. (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (c), (e)(1)-(5).) 

Here, the defects are specifically defined as “defects [that] result in symptoms including, but not limited to: display of ‘transmission system problem’ warning; malfunction of torque converter; torque converter clutch circuit performance failure; transmission fluid leak; defective transmission case; premature failure of transmission; clicking noise; knocking noise; corroded exhaust components; failure of catalytic converter; faulty fuel injectors; DTC P0430; DTC P219A; TSB #16-087; TSB 21-010; and any other concern identified in the repair history for the subject 2018 Honda Pilot; Vehicle Identification Number 5FNYF6H7XJB005957.” (Mot., Separate Statement, p. 2.)

The opposition argues that the powertrain definition “includes … symptoms referencing a myriad of components for which the Subject Vehicle was never presented to an authorized repair facility.” (Opp’n, p. 5.)

However, the declaration of counsel attached to the moving papers summarizes Plaintiff’s authorized repair facility visits between September 20, 2021, and July 21, 2023, with the visits relating to the failure of the torque converted clutch circuit, a leaking transmission case requiring a transmission replacement, corroded exhaust components that required a catalytic converter assembly replacement, and malfunction of the fuel injectors. (Mot., Panhwar Decl., ¶¶ 3-11, Ex. 1 [repair facility visits documents]; see also id. at Exs. 2-3 [copies of service bulletins at issue].)

As a result, it follows that a finding of willful noncompliance with the SBA could arise from a determination that AHM had knowledge of nonconformable defects in the powertrain system components summarized above or based on information relating to the above diagnostic codes and service bulletins, which provided AHM a basis for knowing that it could not conform the Vehicle as a result of the effect of these defects on the powertrain system or of a more global powertrain failure that affected multiple components therein.

This makes the discovery relevant, even if it involves third party complaints. (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (c).) This also defeats the opposition arguments at pages three to seven.

The Court overrules the vagueness and ambiguity objections based on the clarity of the definition of the powertrain system and the specific components alleged to have been affected here.

The (1) confidential, commercially sensitive, and proprietary information, (2) trade secrets, (3) response on behalf of another entity, (4) attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product doctrine, and/or the premature discovery of information and materials to be provided by an expert witness pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210 et seq., (5) right to privacy, and (6) argumentative and assumes a defect objections are not availing. They are not more than cursorily elaborated in AHM’s initial objections (See Mot., Separate Statement, pp. 3-4 ,12-13, 21-22, 30, 38-39, 47), and not at all elaborated in the separate statement, which is a repetition of the opposition points and authorities. (Compare Opp’n, pp. 4-8 [only arguing privacy in header at page 5, § 2], with Opp’n, Sep. St., 18-23, 39-44, 52-57 [essentially identical argument].) Neither did any of the parties attach meet and confer letters from AHM clarifying its position because, as noted in the Background at Section I above, AHM did not respond to meet and confer efforts by Plaintiff’s counsel, nor does it dispute that position. (Mot., Panhwar Decl., ¶¶ 3-11, Ex. 1; Opp’n, Dao Decl., ¶¶ 1-7 [describing no response to meet and confer], Exs. A-C [only attaching discovery request, objection, and a meet and confer letter sent to AHM’s counsel by Plaintiff’s counsel].)

The compel arbitration objection fails because the record fails to reflect that any motion to compel arbitration has ever been filed or even reserved for hearing with this Court.

However, the final objection, overbreadth, has some merit as relates to email production and other documents, and the Court fails to find waiver of objections to ESI production.

The Court therefore ORDERS the response to RPDs, Set One, Nos. 17, 19, and 20 to be narrowed to documents responsive to a search for documents that contain the source codes or technical bulletins that are at issue in the complaint, and not including any work product or attorney/client privileged communications; and as limited, GRANTS the motion as to these requests. 

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff Jesus Castrol’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide such further responses within 30 days.