Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV05219, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV05219 Hearing Date: December 14, 2023 Dept: 52
Special Interrogatories
Plaintiffs Jose Surio and Irais
Fuentes move to compel defendant FCA US LLC to serve further responses to
special interrogatories Nos. 29-31 and 45-48.
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).)
This motion is moot as to special
interrogatories Nos. 29-31. FCA US LLC
served supplemental responses to Nos. 29-31 after plaintiffs filed the motion. (Vawter Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. 4, pp. 3-4.)
FCA
US LLC made valid objections to special interrogatories Nos. 45-48. No. 45 asks, “At the time of release for the
2019 Jeep Compass vehicles, state your anticipated range for repairs per
thousand vehicles sold (R/1000).” No. 46
asks for the rate of repairs performed per thousand vehicles sold. These interrogatories are not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The primary focus of this Song-Beverly Action
is whether plaintiffs’ vehicle suffered from defects that substantially
impaired its value. How many repairs of
all kinds—even if unrelated to the defects plaintiffs allege—the manufacturer anticipated
or performed for all vehicles of the same model and year is too far removed
from the issues in this action.
No.
47 asks FCA to “[i]dentify in order the five symptoms with the highest repairs
per thousand … and the corresponding repairs per thousand.” No. 48 asks FCA to “[i]dentify in order the
five components with the highest repairs per thousand.” These questions are not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for the same reasons as Nos. 45
and 46. The top five symptoms or
components repaired—regardless of whether plaintiffs allege their vehicle needed
repairs for those symptoms or to those components—are too far removed from the
issues in this action.
Defendant
FCA US LLC’s objections to special interrogatories Nos. 45-48 are sustained.
Requests for Production
Plaintiffs Jose Surio and Irais
Fuentes move to compel defendant FCA US LLC to serve further responses to
requests for production Nos. 45 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).)
FCA US LLC made valid objections to
requests for production Nos. 45 and 46. No.
45 requests, “All DOCUMENTS evidencing complaints by owners of 2019 Jeep
Compass vehicles regarding any of the complaints that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was
presented to YOUR or YOUR authorized repair facilities for repair during the
warranty period.” Defendant objected that
“the phrase ‘any of the complaints that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented to YOUR
or YOUR authorized repair facilities for repair during the warranty period’ is
vague and ambiguous.” 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).) By incorporating the
above phrase, this request does not reasonably particularize the category of
documents. It is not
sufficiently clear which complaints plaintiffs refer to.
No. 46 requested “All DOCUMENTS evidencing warranty repairs to 2019 Jeep
Compass vehicles regarding any of the components that YOU or YOUR authorized
repair facilities performed repairs on under warranty.” Defendant objected that “the phrase ‘any of
the components that YOU or YOUR authorized repair facilities performed repairs
on under warranty’ is vague and ambiguous.”
Like No. 45, this request is not reasonably particularized because it is
not sufficiently clear which components plaintiffs refer to.
FCA US LLC also made valid
objections that these requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. The proper focus of this action is whether
plaintiffs’ 2019 Jeep Compass conforms to its warranty. These requests seek documents about the
entire line of vehicles. At most, these
documents could show defendant’s knowledge of defects to support plaintiffs’
claim that defendant willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act. But that analysis turns primarily on
defendant’s process in attempting to repair the subject vehicle and in deciding
not to repurchase it. “A decision made
without the use of reasonably available information germane to that decision is
not a reasonable, good faith decision.”
(Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23
Cal.App.4th 174, 186; accord Lukather v. General Motors, LLC (2010) 181
Cal.App.4th 1041, 1051-1052.) Documents
showing that other consumers complained about defects in 2019 Jeep Compass
vehicles are not necessary or essential to prove defendant acted in bad faith
in its decisions regarding plaintiffs’ vehicle.
Finally, FCA US LLC properly
objected that these requests for production are not proportional to the needs
of this case. When “taking into account the needs of
the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake
in the litigation,” these requests are “unduly burdensome.” (CCP § 2019.030(a)(2).) As discussed above, this action concerns whether
plaintiffs’ vehicle was defective and on defendant’s process in attempting to repair the subject vehicle and
deciding not to repurchase it. For
request Nos. 45 and 46, responsive documents likely include service records for
thousands of vehicles around the country.
Plaintiffs do not set forth specific facts showing good cause for FCA US
LLC to produce those documents.
Defendant FCA US LLC’s objections
to requests for production Nos. 45 and 46 are sustained.
Disposition
Plaintiffs Jose Surio and Irais Fuentes’s
motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is denied.
Plaintiffs Jose Surio and Irais
Fuentes’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production is denied.