Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV24906, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV24906 Hearing Date: June 28, 2024 Dept: 52
Plaintiff Deandra Aguiar’s Motion to
Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production
Plaintiff Deandra Aguiar moves to
compel defendant FCA US LLC to provide further responses to requests for
production Nos. 16-21. A party propounding requests for
production 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).)
After
plaintiff filed this motion, defendant served supplemental responses to the
requests. (Gregg Decl., Ex. F.) In these circumstances, the court has
discretion to consider the merits of the supplemental responses. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v.
Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.)
Defendant’s
supplemental responses to requests for production Nos. 16, 17, 18, and 21 are valid
representations of inability to comply. “A
representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for
inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search
and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand.
This statement shall also specify
whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has
never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has
never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the
responding party.” (CCP § 2031.230.)
To
Nos. 16 and 17, defendant responded: “FCA US is unable to comply with this
request as it has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and no
recalls nor internal investigations have been conducted related to the terms
identified in Plaintiff’s ‘POWERTRAIN DEFECT’ definition and therefore no
documents, including emails, exist or have ever existed responsive to this
request.” (Gregg Decl., Ex. F.)
To
Nos. 18 and 21, defendant responded: “FCA US is unable to comply with this
request as it has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and no
Technical Service Bulletins (‘TSBs’), recalls nor internal investigations have
been conducted related to the terms identified in Plaintiff’s ‘POWERTRAIN
DEFECT’ definition and therefore no documents, including emails, exist or have
ever existed responsive to this request.” (Gregg Decl., Ex. F.)
These
responses include each element required by Code of Civil Procedure section
2031.230: FCA cannot comply, it made a diligent search and reasonable inquiry
to comply, and the documents never existed.
Regarding
the supplemental responses, plaintiff’s reply argues, “[E]ach of Defendant’s
supplemental responses to the Requests Nos. 16-21 are still not code compliant
because Defendant unilaterally limits its document production. Defendant’s avoidance of the proper Code-compliant
verbiage in its supplemental responses makes it impossible for Plaintiff to
glean where the outstanding documents responsive to the at-issue Requests are. Additionally, Defendant’s document production
is severely lacking; despite Defendant’s contentions in the Gregg Declaration,
Plaintiff has not received any document production.” (Reply, p. 4.)
This
argument does not apply to Nos. 16, 17, 18, and 21. Defendant did not limit its document
production. It stated it cannot comply at
all because, after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, it found no
responsive documents. Defendant used the
proper language required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230.
Defendant
responded to Nos. 19 and 20 with a valid statement of partial compliance. Both requests incorporate the following definition:
“The term ‘POWERTRAIN DEFECT’ shall be understood to mean such defects which
result in symptoms including, but not limited to: vehicle shakes a lot while
driving; vehicle has coolant leaking from the engine bay; vehicle feels like it
pulls hard or shift harder when accelerating; arm, valve rocker - replace 3.6-
liter engine; premature failure of vehicle engine; vehicle powertrain
malfunction; and any other concern identified in the repair history for the
subject 2021 DODGE DURANGO; Vehicle Identification Number 1C4RDHDG0MC547100.”
No.
19 demands: “All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored
information and electronic mails, concerning customer complaints, claims,
reported failures, and warranty claims related to POWERTRAIN DEFECT, in
vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including
but not limited to any databases in YOUR possession with information from
dealers, service departments, parts departments, or warranty departments, and
all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim or reported
failure.”
No.
20 demands: “All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored
information and electronic mails, concerning failure rates of vehicles of the
same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE as a result of POWERTRAIN
DEFECT.”
Initially,
defendant responded with numerous objections, including that the requests do
not comply “with Code of Civil Procedure §2031.030(c)(1) and do[] not provide
FCA US with sufficient information to identify the documents or category of
documents being sought.”
That
objection is proper. Code of Civil
Procedure section 2031.030(c)(1) provides that 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).) These requests are not reasonably
particularized because each incorporates the ambiguous definition of
“POWERTRAIN DEFECT.” The definition
includes two catchall provisions. First,
it refers to “defects which result in symptoms including, but not limited to”
those identified. Second, it
incorporates “any other concern identified in the repair history for” the
subject vehicle. Moreover, it identifies
six different symptoms. Some of the
identified symptoms themselves are vague, such as “vehicle shakes a lot while
driving” and “vehicle powertrain malfunction.”
There is no feasible way to identify which documents fall within the
requested categories.
Defendant’s objections to requests
for production Nos. 19 and 20 are sustained.
Defendant’s supplemental responses
agreed to produce certain categories of documents. (Gregg Decl., Ex. F.) For No. 19, it stated it would produce “documents
found relating to other customer concerns, including emails between customers
and FCA US, based upon the conditions outlined in Plaintiff’s ‘POWERTRAIN
DEFECT’ definition for the same model year, make, and model vehicles as the
Subject Vehicle” and “all responsive documents found related to warranty claims
and failure rates (c/1000 and MOP/MIS) data for the same model year, make, and
model vehicles as the Subject Vehicle, as they relate to Plaintiff’s ‘POWERTRAIN
DEFECT’ definition.” For No. 20, FCA
stated it would “produce, subject to protective order, all responsive documents
found related to failure rates (c/1000 and MOP/MIS) data for the same model
year, make, and model vehicles as the Subject Vehicle, as they relate to
Plaintiff’s ‘POWERTRAIN DEFECT’ definition.”
Considering
defendant properly objected to these requests, its supplemental responses are
valid statements of partial compliance.
Plaintiff Deandra Aguiar’s motion
to compel further responses to requests for production is denied.