Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV15497, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15497    Hearing Date: April 26, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

Plaintiff Miguel Sanchez sued Defendants Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Does 1 through 10 pursuant to a July 3, 2023 Complaint violations of the Song Beverly Act.

The claims arise from the following allegations. On July 20, 2019, Plaintiff purchased a 2019 Mercedes-Benz GLA250W (Vehicle) manufactured and/or distributed by Mercedez-Benz. In connection with this purchase, Plaintiff received an express written warranty from Mercedez-Benz, which 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 within the warranty period. After Plaintiff took possession of the Vehicle and during the warranty period, the Vehicle contained or developed defects, which include but are not limited to, defective body, powertrain, safety, electrical, braking, and noise systems. Plaintiff then presented the Vehicle to Mercedez-Benz for repair, but Mercedez-Benz was unable to conform the Vehicle to warranty after a reasonable number of attempts. Neither did Mercedez-Benz repurchase or replace the Vehicle.

B. Motion Before the Court

On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff served Request for Production of Documents (RPDs), Set One, on Mercedes-Benz.

On November 30, 2023, following an extension, Mercedes-Benz served responses to RPDs, Set One.

On January 15, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel unsuccessfully attempted to meet and confer with Mercedes-Benz’s counsel regarding a continuance of the motion to compel further deadline. Mercedes-Benz characterizes its nonresponse to this communication as based on timing and the last-minute nature of the request.

On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses from Mercedes-Benz to RDPs, Set One, Nos. 16-21 and 49-51. The motion does not seek monetary sanctions.

On April 15, 2024, Mercedes-Benz filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.

On April 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply to Mercedes-Benz’s opposition.

Plaintiff’s motion is now before the Court.

II. Motion to Compel Further Production

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. Court’s Determination

After review, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, in part and as modified, with the following documents to be produced as follows:

(1) All documents relating to (a) any internal analysis of the Electrical System Defect, (b) communications regarding the Electrical System Defect, (c) customer complaints, claims, and reported failures, (d) the failure rates of the Electrical System Defect, and (e) fixes to the Electrical System Defect, all of which are limited to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle. Mercedes-Benz is not required to conduct a search of emails. (RPDs, Set One, Nos. 16-17, 19-21.)

(2) All documents relating to notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins, and recalls concerning the Electrical System Defect in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle. Mercedes-Benz is not required to conduct a search of emails. (RPDs, Set One, No. 18.)

(3) All documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date of purchase to the present. Mercedes-Benz is not required to conduct a search of emails. (RPDs, Set One, No. 49.)

(4) All training manuals and/or other documents published by Mercedes-Benz and provided to its employees, agents, and representatives in connection with handling consumer lemon law repurchase requests, from the date of purchase to the present. Mercedes-Benz is not required to conduct a search of emails. (RPDs, Set One, No. 50.)

All other requests are DENIED.

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff Miguel Sanchez’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED, in part and as modified, as discussed above.

Given the likely volume of discovery, Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is ORDERED to comply with this order within 45 calendar days.