Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV24652, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24652    Hearing Date: December 12, 2022    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

Plaintiffs Gregory Richmond and Donna Richmond’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

Plaintiffs Gregory Richmond and Donna Richmond move to compel further responses to requests for production, set two, Nos. 38-43 and 46-92. A requesting party may move to compel further responses if “[a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete,” “[a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive,” or “[a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (CCP § 2031.310(a).)

Meet and Confer

Defendant Ford Motor Company contends plaintiffs failed to meet and confer in good faith as required before filing this motion. Plaintiffs sent a detailed meet and confer letter. (Cohen Decl., ¶¶ 12-14, Ex. 6.) Defendant replied, but plaintiffs did not substantively respond before filing this motion. The court finds that, in the circumstances, plaintiffs adequately tried to resolve this dispute.

Nos. 38, 41, 43, and 46: Policies and procedures

Nos. 38, 41, 43, and 46 requested documents about Ford’s policies and procedures regarding repurchases, recalls, document retention, and refunds. For example, No. 38 asks for all documents about Ford’s “policies, procedures, or guidelines for determining whether a vehicle is eligible for a vehicle repurchase.”

Except as discussed below, plaintiffs show good cause for these requests about Ford’s policies. Information about a manufacturer’s policies and practices regarding repurchases may show willfulness. (Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1105 [“evidence that Isuzu adopted internal policies that erected hidden obstacles to the ability of an unwary consumer to obtain redress under the Act” was admissible for willfulness].) Plaintiffs may conduct discovery on Ford’s document retention policy to determine “the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document [or] electronically stored information.” (CCP § 2017.010.)

Plaintiffs, however, either did not limit the requests in time at all or requested documents since 2011. Plaintiffs purchased the subject vehicle, a 2018 Ford Mustang, on September 28, 2018. (Comp., ¶ 8) Requests for documents about Ford’s policies in effect before 2018 are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court finds it appropriate to limit the requests to documents about policies and procedures in effect beginning on January 1, 2018.

Except for objections based on overbreadth as to time, defendant’s objections to Nos. 38, 41, 43, and 46 are overruled.

Nos. 39, 40, and 42: Documents about the subject vehicle

These requests ask for various documents regarding the subject vehicle, including those “within YOUR Customer Relations Center,” documents about service, and recordings between call center representatives and authorized dealers.

These documents are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and plaintiffs show good cause to discover them. To No. 40, Ford objected in part that the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and includes documents subject to attorney-client privilege and work product. Ford fails to justify these objections.

Ford’s objections to No. 40 are overruled.

To each of these requests, Ford also made inadequate statements of compliance or partial compliance. Ford responded it “will comply with this Request” either in whole or part, then stated it will produce various documents. These statements of compliance are insufficient because they do not state Ford would produce “all documents or things in the demanded category that are in [its] possession, custody, or control.” (CCP § 2031.220.) A statement of compliance must include that language because it states under oath not only that the responding party will produce specified documents, but also that the responding party is not withholding any responsive documents.

Nos. 47, 51, 52, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 70, 74, 75, 80, 82, 83, 84 and 86: Documents about other complaints and vehicles

Nos. 47, 51, 52, 57, 59-91, and 63 ask for documents regarding warranty repairs and consumer complaints about “TRANSMISSION DEFECTS” in 2018 Ford Mustangs. Plaintiffs define that phrase as “such defects which result in symptoms including: transmission slipping; loud clunk noise when shifting; jerking; erratic shifting; harsh shifting; hard shifting; untimely shifting; taking too long to shift; pop out of gear on acceleration; trans lugs at 40mph; transmission disengaging; transmission clunks; and/or other similar concerns identified in the repair history for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

Nos. 70, 74, 75, 80, 82, 83, 84 and 86 request corresponding documents about “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS.” Plaintiffs define that phrase as “such defects which result in symptoms including: premature wearing of leather; oil pressure switch leak; loose pressure switch; hole in driver’s seat; inaccurate temperature gauge; paint bubbles; rusting wheel hub; improper alignment of panels; chipping rocker panel; warped scuff plate; improper trunk alignment; seat belt latch rattles; window screeches; seat fabric separating; and/or other similar concerns identified in the repair history for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

These requests do not ask for reasonably particularized categories of documents. A request for production must “[d]esignate the documents” to be produced “either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item.” (CCP § 2031.030(c)(1).) Ford cannot feasibly respond to these requests because they each incorporate over a dozen symptoms or concerns, some of which are at most loosely related, plus the catchall of “other similar concerns identified in the repair history.”

Moreover, Ford shows that “[t]he likely burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit, taking into account the amount in controversy, the resources of the parties, the importance of the issues in the litigation, and the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues.” (CCP § 2031.310(g)(4).) Defendant presents evidence that searching for and producing these documents could require over 200 hours of work. (Southerland Decl., ¶¶ 19-27.)

The likely burden on Ford far outweighs the likely probative value of documents about, for example, “premature wearing of leather,” “hole[s] in driver’s seat,” or “seat fabric separating.” This case primarily concerns plaintiff’s 2018 Ford Mustang. These documents would likely have only minimal probative value. This case does not justify broad discovery of documents about every consumer complaint about these myriad concerns in 2018 Ford Mustangs.

Ford’s objections to Nos. 47, 51, 52, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 70, 74, 75, 80, 82, 83, 84 and 86 are sustained.

Nos. 48, 50, 53, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 73, 76, 85, 88, 89, 90, 91 and 92: Engineering documents; Nos. 49, 54, 55, 56, 58, 64, 72, 77, 78, 79, 81 and 87: Communications with NHTSA, etc.

These requests also seek documents about “TRANSMISSION DEFECTS” and “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS.” They do not ask for reasonably particularized categories of documents for the same reason discussed above.

Ford also again shows “[t]he likely burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit, taking into account the amount in controversy, the resources of the parties, the importance of the issues in the litigation, and the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues.” (CCP § 2031.310(g)(4).) Ford presents evidence that responding to these requests could take over 250 hours. (Southerland Decl., ¶¶ 28-33.) The likely burden on Ford outweighs the likely probative value of these documents.

Ford’s objections to Nos. 48-50, 53-56, 58, 62, 64-69, 71-73, 76-79, 81, 85, and 87-92 are sustained.

Disposition

Plaintiffs Gregory Richmond and Donna Richmond’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production is denied as to request Nos. 47-92.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is granted as to request Nos. 39, 40, and 42. Defendant Ford Motor Company is ordered to provide further responses to Nos. 39, 40, and 42 with complete statements of compliance and without objections within 30 days.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is granted in part as to request Nos. 38, 41, 43, and 46. Defendant Ford Motor Company is ordered to provide further responses to Nos. 38, 41, 43 and 46—limited to policies or procedures in effect from January 1, 2018—with no other objections within 30 days.