Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV00336, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23GDCV00336 Hearing Date: January 5, 2024 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 01/05/2024 – 10:00am
Case No: 23GDCV00336
Trial Date: 01/27/2025
Case Name: BENNY HE, an individual; v. PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-10 inclusive
TENTATIVE
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
BACKGROUND
On
02/17/2023, Plaintiff Benny He filed a Complaint against Porsche Cars North
America, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, alleging three causes of action for: (1)
Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of
Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty, and (3) Violation of the
Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2.
Plaintiff alleges that on January 8, 2018, Plaintiff
purchased a 2017 Porsche Macan. (Compl. ¶8.) Plaintiff alleges that the Subject
Vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff with serious defects and nonconformities to
warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty
including, but not limited to, engine, electrical, and emission system defects.
(Compl. ¶10.)
RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff,
Benny He, moves for an order to strike Defendant PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA,
INC.’s (“Defendant” or “PCNA”) objections and compel further responses to
Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, numbers 3 through 14,
and 16 through 37 (collectively, the “RFPs”).
Plaintiff brings this Motion pursuant to California
Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2031.310, and 2031.320, on the grounds that
Defendant waived its objections and failed to provide adequate responses to
Plaintiff’s RFPs, which seek documents relevant to their Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act (“SBA”) causes of action.
Procedural
Moving Party: Plaintiff, Benny He
Responding Party: Defendant, Porsche Cars North America,, Inc.
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok
Proper Address (CCP §1013, §1013a, §1013b): Ok
Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Separate Statement;
Proposed Order; Kohanoff Declaration;
Opposition Papers: Opposition; Separate Statement;
Chung Declaration; Request for Judicial Notice
Reply Papers: Reply
LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION
CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that a party demanding a document
inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if
the demanding party deems that:
“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is
incomplete.
(2) A
representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
(3)
An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”
Under
CCP § 2031.310 (b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good
cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”
PROCEDURAL ANALYSIS
45-Day Requirement
Unless
notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified
response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific
later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in
writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to
the demand. (CCP §2031.310(c).)
Here, the instant motion is timely.
Meet and Confer
“The
motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section
2016.040.” (CCP §2031.310(b)(2).)
Here, Opposition argues that Movant did not meet and
confer. The Court does not find this argument availing because Movant sent
Defendant a meet and confer letter, but Defendant did not respond to the
letter.
ANALYSIS
TENTATIVE RULING 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-14
For
the instant RFPs, in Opposition, Porsche argues that it stated it would fully
comply with the instant requests and listed the various responsive documents in
its possession, custody, or control that it would produce. However, Porsche’s
responses do not indicate that it responded that it would comply in full. In
several of these responses, Porsche states they will comply in full, then
Porsche enumerates which documents they will produce, and also asserts
objections. These responses do not state the code-compliant manner in which a
party is to state it will comply in full.
While the Opposition argues that it stated it would
comply in full, the responses do not comply with 2031.220. After the Opposition
argues that it responded that it would comply in full, the Opposition argues it
need only produce documents in their possession, custody, or control based on
2031.230. However, 2031.230 pertains to responses about a representation of an
inability to comply, yet Opposition states it is responding that it will comply
in full.
Further, even though the Opposition argues it
responded by stating it would comply in full, many of these responses enumerate
specific documents that Defendant plans to produce, which is evasive because it
is unclear if Defendant is complying in full with the request, or only
complying according to its own terms by limiting what it is producing despite
the fact it stated it would comply in full.
Since the Opposition stated it will comply in full
with these requests, and Defendant’s responses are not code compliant with
stating it will comply in full, Defendant’s objections in its responses are
OVERRULED and Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses with respect to
these RFPs is GRANTED.
TENTATIVE RULING 6,
9, 24
The Court is unclear as to what issues Plaintiff has
with Defendant’s responses as to these RFPs because Plaintiff’s motion and
separate statement are not responsive to these requests. Like many of these
motions submitted by Plaintiff’s firm, Plaintiff states the exact same reasons
for every single RFP as to why Defendant’s responses are deficient. Plaintiff’s
separate statement does not help the Court evaluate what issue Plaintiff has
with Defendant’s response since it addresses several issues that are not even
relevant to the response by Defendant.
The Court will hear argument on these issues.
TENTATIVE RULING 16-23, 25-29
The
Court’s ruling as to these RFPs is the same as the Court’s ruling was for RFPs 3,
4, 5, 7, 8, 10-14.
TENTATIVE RULING 30-32
“In
the more specific context of a demand for production of a tangible thing, the
party who asks the trial court to compel production must show “good cause” for
the request—but unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of
attorney work product, that burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of
relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96
Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)
As to these requests, the Court fails to understand
Movant’s arguments as to good cause. The Court tentatively plans to DENY
Plaintiff’s motion as to these requests but will hear argument.
TENTATIVE RULING 33-35, 37
Plaintiff’s
motion to compel further responses will likely be GRANTED as to these responses
and objections overruled; however, the Court will hear argument as to limiting these
requests as to geography.
TENTATIVE RULING 36
Plaintiff’s
motion is DENIED as to this RFP. Defendant’s objection on “above-average repair
rates” is sustained.
OVERALL AS TO ALL TENTATIVE RULINGS
For
those RFPs in which the Court is compelling a further response, Porsche is to
provide a verified, code compliant, further responses, without objection,
within [X] days of
this hearing.
Defendant’s request for judicial notice of Plaintiff’s
Complaint is GRANTED.
Sanctions
Except
as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction
under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person,
or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further
response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction
acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP §2031.310(h).)
No sanctions were requested by either party.