Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV37114, Date: 2023-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37114    Hearing Date: October 30, 2023    Dept: 52

Plaintiff David Monge’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

Plaintiff David Monge moves to compel further responses to requests for production, set one, Nos. 7, 9, 11-31, 34, and 40-67.  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).)

Timeliness

Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. argues plaintiff’s motion is untimely as to request Nos. 9, 12-26, 34, 46-54, 58-61.  The requesting party must move to compel further responses “within 45 days of the service of the verified response.”  (CCP § 2031.310(c).)  Plaintiff filed this motion within 45 days of defendant’s verification, but defendant argues the motion is untimely as to these requests because defendant responded only with objections. 

The motion is timely as to all requests.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.250(a) provides, “The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections.”  Subdivision (c) of that section provides, “The attorney for the responding party shall sign any responses that contain an objection.” 

These requirements do not apply separately to each individual numbered category within a demand for inspection.  The Civil Discovery Act contemplates a singular “response” to a “demand” containing separately numbered “item[s] or category[ies] in the demand” and response.  (CCP § 2031.210(c); accord § 2031.280(a) [“documents produced in response to a demand … shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond”].)  Neither responding parties nor their attorneys need to sign 67 times when responding to a demand for production of 67 categories of documents.  Defendant’s response gave substantive answers to many of the categories.  Its “response” thus does not contain “only objections” under section 2031.250(c).  “[T]he responses [must] be verified because they were a combination of responses and objections.  And because they had to be verified, the clock did not begin running until they were.”  (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 136.)

Mootness

Defendant argues the motion is moot as to request Nos. 7, 40-45, and 57 because they produced the requested documents.  (Opp., p. 3.)  Plaintiff moves to compel further written responses to the requests for production (CCP § 2031.310), not only to compel production of documents in compliance with the responding party’s “statement of compliance” (§ 2031.320(a)).  Defendant presents evidence only that it produced additional documents.  (Davenport Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. G.)  It provides no evidence that it served supplemental written responses to the requests.  Producing documents alone is insufficient because plaintiff is entitled to code-compliant responses to the requests themselves. 

Nos. 11, 16-26, 34, 60, and 61

Request Nos. 11, 16-26, 34, 60, and 61 do not “reasonably particulariz[e] each category of item” as required.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030(c)(1).)  These requests incorporate plaintiff’s definition of “DEFECT(S)” as “concerns presented to Defendant and its authorized service and repair facilities by owners/lessors of SIMILAR VEHICLES for diagnosis and repair, and which are evidenced within the repair history of SUBJECT VEHICLE and/or its component parts, including but not limited to: engine, transmission, abnormal hard shifting, crankshaft position sensor defects, persistent intake malfunction defects, HVAC system, and electrical system defects.”  Not only does this request refer to seven different types of defects, but it also provides that it is “not limited to” those defects.  As a result, the requests incorporating this definition are boundless.  Defendant cannot reasonably respond to them. 

Defendant’s objections to request Nos. 11, 16-26, 34, 60, and 61 are sustained.

Nos. 12-16, 20-23, 27-31, 41-47, and 61-67

These requests also do not “reasonably particulariz[e] each category of item” as required.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030(c)(1).)        Nos. 12-15 and 61 request “All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to” various topics.  Nos. 16 and 20-23 request “All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating in any way to any decision to modify” specified parts of the vehicle.  Nos. 27-31 request “All DOCUMENTS which refer to, reflect, or relate to” various topics.  Nos. 41-45 and 62-67 request, “All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to” various topics.  No. 46 requests, “All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, from 2018 to the present, concerning or relating to all SIMILAR VEHICLES which were repurchased or replaced by YOU pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act.”

Requesting documents that concern, refer, relate, reflect, evidence, or describe these categories obfuscates what plaintiff demands.  It is unclear what these requests include.  For example, plaintiff did not simply ask for the “technical service bulletin[s]” themselves in No. 27.  For No. 46, documents “concerning or relating to all” similar vehicles defendant repurchased could include everything from consumers’ receipts, the repair histories of the repurchased vehicles, consumers’ written requests for repurchase, or any number of other types of documents.  These requests are so broad that defendant cannot reasonably respond.

No. 47, meanwhile, requests “All Vehicle Warranty History Reports for the repurchased or replaced SIMILAR VEHICLES identified in YOUR response to the preceding request.”  Because this request relies on No. 46, defendant cannot reasonably respond to it either. 

Defendant’s objections to Nos. 12-16, 20-23, 27-31, 41-47, and 61-67 are sustained.

Nos. 7, 9, 40, and 48-59

Plaintiff shows good cause to compel further responses to these requests.  They ask for documents about defendant’s general policies, training, and third-party dispute resolution efforts related to the Song-Beverly Act (Nos. 7, 40, 48-57), manuals about diagnosing and repairing 2017 Volkswagen CC vehicles (No. 9), and publications to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Nos. 58 and 59).

These requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Information about a manufacturer’s policies and practices regarding repurchases based on similar consumer complaints 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].)  Evidence about purported defects or repurchases in an entire class of vehicles may support plaintiff’s claims.  (See Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154 [testimony about the transmission model used in a wide range of vehicles, including plaintiff’s, was admissible]; Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, 346-347 [manufacturer’s internal emails about problems in class of vehicles supported jury’s finding of willful violation].) 

Defendant does not justify its other objections to these requests.  Defendant’s objections to Nos. 7, 9, 40, and 48-59 are overruled.

Disposition

            Plaintiff David Monge’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production is denied as to request Nos. 11-31, 34, 41-47, and 60-67. 

Plaintiff David Monge’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production is granted as to request Nos. 7, 9, 40, and 48-59.  Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is ordered to provide further verified responses without objections to requests for production Nos. 7, 9, 40, and 48-59.  Defendant shall produce any additional responsive documents concurrently with its written responses.