Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV39769, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV39769 Hearing Date: October 31, 2023 Dept: 52
Separate Statement
Defendant
Kia America, Inc.’s oppositions to plaintiff’s motions argue the separate
statements are defective because they incorporate material by reference. “The separate statement must be full and
complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to
determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the
separate statement by reference.” (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).) Plaintiff’s
separate statements are full and complete.
Each separate statement merely incorporates earlier parts of itself—e.g.,
the reasons to compel further responses to No. 2 incorporate the reasons stated
for No. 1. Doing so is permitted and
preferable to copying the same text repeatedly.
Form Interrogatories
Plaintiff
Ruby Gomez moves to compel defendant Kia America, Inc. to further respond to
form interrogatory No. 12.1.
A party propounding interrogatories
may move to compel further responses when an answer “is evasive or incomplete,”
“[a]n exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is
unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate,” or
“[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (CCP § 2030.300(a).)
Form interrogatory No. 12.1 asks
defendant to identify people who witnessed the “incident,” made statements at
the scene, heard statements by someone at the scene, or has knowledge of the
“incident.” Defendant made various
objections to this interrogatory before providing a substantive answer. In its opposition, defendant did not
substantiate any of its objections.
Defendant’s objections are overruled.
Substantively, defendant responded:
“Ruby Gomez and Kia of Cerritos and Garden Grove Kia. Sales associates, service advisors and
technicians at Kia of Cerritos and Garden Grove Kia, whose identities are
unknown at this time. Pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KA refers Plaintiff to the purchase
contract and service records for the subject vehicle, which may provide
information from which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and
technicians’ identities may be ascertained.
The originals of these records are believed to be in Plaintiff’s
possession.”
This response is insufficient. “[A]
responding party generally may not respond to interrogatories
just by asserting its ‘inability to respond.’ ”
(Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare
Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 406.) “[A] party has a general duty to conduct a
reasonable investigation to obtain responsive information and must furnish
information from all sources under his or her control.” (Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior
Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504.)
Defendant’s response does not show it made any effort to identify the
sales associates, service advisors, and technicians at Kia of Cerritos and
Garden Grove Kia.
Special Interrogatories
Plaintiff
Ruby Gomez moves to compel defendant Kia America, Inc. to further respond to special
interrogatories Nos. 25, 40-43, 45, and 61.
Defendant
made meritless objections to Nos. 25, 40, 43, and 45. These interrogatories ask defendant to
identify people who may know relevant information. No. 25 asks defendant to identify people “responsible
for the customer relations department” in the applicable time and place. No. 40 asks defendant to identify the people
whose responsibility for supervising the process of evaluating vehicles for
purchase. No. 43 asks defendant to
identify all people involved in investigation of plaintiff’s vehicle. No. 45 asks defendant to identify people
responsible for the decision not to repurchase the vehicle. These questions may result in the discovery
of admissible evidence regarding whether any violation of the Song-Beverly Act
was willful.
For
these interrogatories, defendant only gave a substantive response to No. 43. It referred to various documents under Code
of Civil Procedure section 2030.230. Defendant
does not adequately show that answering this question will require making a
summary or compilation from the documents.
Defendant
also made meritless objections to special interrogatory No. 41. It asks, “Please describe with particularity
how the individual(s) identified in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory
above perform their duties.” Defendant made
various objections. Defendant provides
no explanation for how this question could invade the attorney-client privilege
or work product privilege. Assuming the
people identified in response to No. 40 would include attorneys, these
privileges would not apply to other individuals identified. This interrogatory is reasonably calculated
to discover admissible evidence regarding whether any violation of the
Song-Beverly Act was willful.
Defendant gave an incomplete and
evasive response to No. 42. This
interrogatory provides, “Explain with particularity all aspects of YOUR
investigation into whether the SUBJECT VEHICLE qualified or was eligible for
repurchase or replacement pursuant to the Song-Beverly Warranty Act.” Substantively, defendant responded that it “analyzes
the facts and claims on a case by case basis before making a decision to
repurchase a vehicle.” It also referred
to various documents. Defendant’s
response is generic and conclusory. It
does not identify even the basic categories of facts it uses to evaluate a vehicle
for repurchase.
No. 61 asks, “Please state the
total number of days the SUBJECT VEHICLE was out of service for warranty
repairs.” Defendant responded only by
objecting that the interrogatory “seeks immaterial and irrelevant information
which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence” and that the “information is either already in the Plaintiff’s
possession or is equally available to the Plaintiff.”
This interrogatory seeks relevant
and admissible information. Plaintiff
can establish a presumption in her favor if “[t]he vehicle is out of service by
reason of repair of nonconformities by the manufacturer or its agents for a
cumulative total of more than 30 calendar days since delivery of the vehicle to
the buyer.” (Civ. Code, §
1793.22(b)(3).)
This interrogatory may seek “information
… equally available to the propounding party.” (CCP § 2030.220(c).) But one cannot “refus[e] to answer an interrogatory simply upon
the ground that the answer is known to the party seeking the information.” (Singer v. Superior Court of Contra Costa
County (1960) 54 Cal.2d 318, 324.)
This response only applies to the extent the responding party does not
know the answer. “If an interrogatory
cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (CCP § 2030.220(b).) “If the responding party does not have
personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party
shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the
information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where
the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (CCP § 2030.220(c).) Moreover, this interrogatory is a proper
method of asking defendant to identify how many days it contends the vehicle
was out of service.
Defendant’s objections to special
interrogatory Nos. 25, 40-43, 45, and 61 are overruled.
Plaintiff is entitled to further responses to these interrogatories.
Requests for Production
Plaintiff
Ruby Gomez moves to compel further responses to requests for production Nos. 1,
9, 17, 31, 37, 40, 43, and 46.
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).)
Defendant made meritless objections
to Nos. 1, 9, 17, 31, 43, and 46. Defendant
does not adequately support any of its objections to these requests. Plaintiff shows good cause to compel further
responses to those requests.
No. 1 asks for repair orders (and
related documents) relating to the subject vehicle. Those are directly relevant.
No. 9 asks for documents regarding
the subject vehicle including service bulletins. That request is reasonably calculated to lead
to admissible evidence on whether the components in plaintiff’s vehicle are
defective and on defendant’s knowledge of any such defects. (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 [evidence of problems in class of vehicles supported jury’s finding of
willful violation].)
No. 17 asks for documents regarding warranty
repairs on the subject vehicle. This
request may lead to admissible evidence on defendant’s ability to repair the
vehicle and its knowledge of any defects.
Substantively, defendant responded, “KA refers Plaintiff to the Warranty
and Consumer Information Manual for the subject vehicle.” That is not a valid statement of compliance
that it will produce “all documents or things in the demanded category that are
in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection
is being made.” (CCP § 2031.220.)
No. 31 asks for “DOCUMENTS relating to the Customer Call Center,
including but not limited to, all flow charts, processes, and/or scripts.” This request is reasonably calculated to
discover evidence that may be admissible to show defendant willfully violated
the Song-Beverly Act by obstructing consumers’ requests for repurchase. (See 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].)
No. 43 asks for all documents regarding
consumer complaints for the same class of vehicles “regarding issues with the
upstream oxygen sensor” as identified in specified repair orders. No. 46 asks the same question for “issues
with the high-pressure fuel pump.” Those
are the very issues plaintiff alleges she experienced in her vehicle. These requests are reasonably calculated to
lead to admissible evidence on defendant’s knowledge of any associated defects
or its ability to repair any associated defects.
Defendant’s objections to request Nos.
1, 9, 17, 31, 43, and 46 are overruled.
Request Nos. 37 and 40 are not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. No. 37 asks for all “All DOCUMENTS
evidencing, relating, or referring to complaints by California owners of the
same year, make, model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE regarding issues with the check
engine light illuminating as identified on” specified repair orders. No. 40 asks demands the same documents regarding
issues with “the malfunction indicator lamp illuminating.” This action is about alleged defects or
failures to conform to the warranty that led to illuminating the vehicle’s
check engine light or malfunction indicator lamp. This action is about the underlying problems
that caused those indicators. Plaintiff made
separate requests tailored to those defects.
Defendant’s objections to request
Nos. 37 and 40 are sustained.
Deposition of Person(s) Most Knowledgeable
Plaintiff
Ruby Gomez moves to compel the deposition of defendant Kia America, Inc.’s
person(s) most knowledgeable regarding matters of examination Nos. 1-12 and
requests for production Nos. 1-8. One
may move to compel the deposition of a party who fails to appear at deposition
“without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410.” (CCP § 2025.450(a).)
Defendant
made valid objections to matters of examination Nos. 2-6. Matter No. 2 is “All Technical Service
Bulletins applicable to the Subject Vehicle, including those superseded.” Nos. 3 and 4 follow up on No. 2 by seeking
further information about the Technical Service Bulletins. Matter No. 5 is “All recalls applicable to
the Subject Vehicle, including those superseded,” and No. 6 asks “Why these
recalls were issued.” Document request
Nos. 3 and 4 mirror matters of examination No. 2 and 5.
These are not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Technical service bulletins and recalls
unrelated to the defects plaintiff alleges in her vehicle are beyond the scope
of this action. Bulletins and recalls
regarding, for example, 2021 Kia Seltos’ air conditioning, have nothing to do
with this case.
Defendant’s objections to matters
of examination Nos. 2-6 and document requests Nos. 3 and 4 are sustained.
Defendant did not make valid
objections to the remaining matters of examination and document requests. These matters and document requests concern
the subject vehicle, the repairs made to it, the investigation and process of
determining whether to repurchase plaintiff’s vehicle, defendant’s policies and
procedures for evaluating repurchase requests in general, and the warranty
applicable to plaintiff’s vehicle. These
matters and document requests are all reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence regarding whether defendant was able to
adequately repair plaintiff’s vehicle to conform to the warranty, its knowledge
of any defects, and its policies regarding compliance with the Song-Beverly
Act.
Defendant’s objections to matters
of examination Nos. 1 and 7-12 and document requests Nos. 1, 2, and 5-8 are overruled.
Disposition
Plaintiff
Ruby Gomez’s motion to compel a further response to form interrogatory No. 12.1
is granted. Defendant
Kia America, Inc. is ordered to provide
further verified responses without objections to form interrogatory No. 12.1
within 30 days.
Plaintiff Ruby Gomez’s motion to
compel further responses to special interrogatories is granted. Defendant
Kia America, Inc. is ordered to provide
further verified responses without objections to special interrogatory Nos. 25,
40-43, 45, and 61 within 30 days.
Plaintiff Ruby Gomez’s motion to
compel further responses to requests for production is denied as to request Nos. 37 and 40. The motion is granted as to request Nos. 1, 9, 17, 31, 43, and 46. Defendant Kia America, Inc. is ordered to provide further verified responses without
objections to requests for production Nos. 1, 9, 17, 31, 43, and 46 within 30
days. Defendant shall produce any
additional responsive documents concurrently with its written responses.
Plaintiff Ruby Gomez’s motion to
compel the deposition of defendant’s person(s) most knowledgeable, with
production of documents, is denied as to
matters of examination Nos. 2-6 and document requests Nos. 3 and 4. The motion is granted as to matters of examination Nos. 1 and 7-12
and document requests Nos. 1, 2, and 5-8.
Defendant Kia America, Inc. is ordered to produce its person(s) most knowledgeable on matters of examination
Nos. 1 and 7-12 for deposition and to produce all documents responsive to
request Nos. 1, 2, and 5-8 within 30 days.