Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV16149, Date: 2024-06-28 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: 23STCV16149    Hearing Date: June 28, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

On March 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents (RPDs), Set One, Nos. 16-21, which Plaintiffs served on Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Mercedez-Benz) on December 21, 2023, and to which Mercedes-Benz provided objection only responses on January 17, 2024.

On June 14, 2024, Mercedez-Benz filed an opposition, and on June 21, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a reply.

Plaintiffs’ motion is now before the Court.

II. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production: GRANTED in part.

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, incomplete, 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

The Court finds in favor of Plaintiffs.

The Court rejects Mercedez-Benz’s arguments to the effect that discovery here is not relevant or otherwise proper where the discovery relates to information concerning third-party vehicles of similar year, make, and model, though the Court agrees that the discovery is somewhat overbroad.

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, if discovery shows that Mercedes-Benz had knowledge from third-party vehicle complaints that components used in the subject vehicle—e.g., the electrical system in the subject vehicle—were not conformable to warranty, then that discovery could support a finding that Mercedes-Benz willfully did not comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act by failing to replace or repurchase the subject vehicle. As a result, discovery relating to vehicles of the same year, make, and model is relevant.

However, the Court agrees that the discovery requests are overbroad insofar as Plaintiff has requested discovery relating to “2021 Mercedes-Benz GLA 250 4MATIC” vehicles, whereas Plaintiff appears to have purchased a more specific “2021 Mercedes-Benz GLA 250W4 4MATIC 2.0L, 8 Speed Automatic Transmission.” (See, e.g., Opp’n, Separate Statement, p. 67.) To the extent the Court grants this motion, discovery is limited to the “2021 Mercedes-Benz GLA 250W4 4MATIC 2.0L, 8 Speed Automatic Transmission.” The Court notes, however, that if electrical defects alleged in the Complaint, or mentioned in reports from visits to Mercedes-Benz authorized dealerships for repair, if any, are common to all “2021 Mercedes-Benz GLA 250 4MATIC” vehicles, then the Court’s qualification is a moot point.

The Court also limits the requests by ordering that, if this motion is granted, Mercedes-Benz need not provide emails in its ESI discovery.

Mercedes-Benz’s other objections are unavailing or are not properly supported.

The objections as to vagueness, ambiguity, unintelligibility, unclear definition, compound, overbreadth (other than as discussed above), relevance, failure to narrow requests, and arbitration lack merit. Except as to arbitration, these objections are insufficiently supported and are contradicted by the clarity and relevance of the requests, as discussed above. The Court STRIKES these objections per the moving papers’ request, as qualified by the Court. The Court also STRIKES the arbitration objection where no such motion appears in the Court’s docket and no order compelling arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims has been entered by the Court.

The undue burden objection is not properly supported. While the opposition’s Gurocak declaration sets out the burden Mercedes-Benz may face in complying with discovery here, the Court notes that that burden is diminished by the Court’s above and below orders limiting the scope of discovery. Moreover, the Court is not persuaded that the burden to Mercedes-Benz set out in the Gurocak declaration overcomes the need for the discovery here.

The privacy objection is also not sufficiently supported because, other than in generalities, Mercedes-Benz does not discuss the general nature of the private information at issue. Nevertheless, to the extent that it exists, the Court permits the redaction of third-party information.

The confidential and proprietary information objections are not sufficiently supported by the record. The Court, however, does not strike these objections, as requested by Plaintiff.

Last, the trade secret, attorney-client privilege, and attorney work product objections may be viable but need to be supported by a privilege log to the effect of Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 291, fn. 6—provided, of course, that no protective or other order is already in place to address privilege concerns in discovery.

Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion subject to the above restrictions relating to (1) the type of vehicle at issue for the same year, make, or model (“2021 Mercedes-Benz GLA 250W4 4MATIC 2.0L, 8 Speed Automatic Transmission), (2) no email discovery, and (3) the ability to redact third-party information. The Court also notes that Mercedes-Benz must support its privilege objections with a privilege log or pursuant to an applicable protective order, as applicable.

III. Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One [Res ID # 2902] is GRANTED in part as set forth above.

Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is ordered to provide further responses to Plaintiffs Salvador De La Cruz and Aileen Zepeda within 45 days of this ruling, subject to the above Court modifications to discovery. The Court provides this ample time to give Defendant an opportunity to collect what is represented as a substantial number of documents that may be responsive to the production requests at issue here.