Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 22STCV05779, Date: 2023-09-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV05779 Hearing Date: November 29, 2023 Dept: 30
Calendar No.
Diaz vs. Kia America,
Inc., et. al., Case No. 22STCV05779
Tentative
Ruling re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Further Discovery Responses
Plaintiff Laura Diaz on behalf of
Juan Machain (Plaintiff) moves for an order compelling Defendant Kia America, Inc.’s (Defendant) further responses to the Requests for Production of
Documents (Set Two), Nos. 47-49. The motion is denied.
A motion to compel further production must set forth
specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the
inspection demand. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) It is
not necessary for the motion to show that the material sought will be
admissible in evidence. “Good cause” may be found to justify discovery
where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial
preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (See Associated Brewers
Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586-588; see also CCP §§
2017.010, 2019.030(a)(1) [Information is discoverable if it is itself
admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence and it is not unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient,
less burdensome, or less expensive.];¿Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48
Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612.)
“The court shall restrict the frequency or extent of the
use of a discovery method if it determines either of the following: [¶] 1. The discovery sought is
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more
convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. [¶]¿2.
The selected method of discovery is unduly burdensome
or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the
importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.” (Code Civ. Proc.,¿§
2019.030, subd. (a).)
“For discovery purposes, information is
relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case,
preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’
[Citation]. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless
privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.
[Citation] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales
v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)
Plaintiff propounded the Requests for Production (Set Two)
on Defendant on February 8, 2023. (Samra Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. B.) The set consisted
of the following three Requests:
No. 47: YOUR template “settlement release agreement” for a
vehicle repurchase in California in effect at the time of the repurchase
request for Plaintiff’s vehicle.
No. 48: YOUR exemplar “settlement release agreement” for a
vehicle repurchase in California in effect at the time of the repurchase
request for Plaintiff’s vehicle.
No. 49: YOUR policies and procedures for asking a
California consumer to sign a “settlement release agreement” as part of a
pre-litigation repurchase.
Defendant served responses on March
27, 2023, which objected to each request as overly broad, ambiguous,
irrelevant, and seeking confidential information. (Samra Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. B.)
Plaintiff’s counsel
states that on June 30, 2021, in response to Plaintiff’s pre-litigation request
for Defendant to repurchase or replace Plaintiff’s vehicle, Defendant offered
to either replace, repurchase, or repair the vehicle with the condition that
“[a]ll options will require a signed settlement agreement.” (Samra Decl. ¶ 4.)
Defendant did not disclose the terms of the settlement agreement to Plaintiff.
(Samra Decl. ¶ 5.)
Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s vehicle repurchase
request and its related offer of settlement are relevant to Defendant’s alleged
breach of its duty under Song-Beverly to provide restitution after a reasonable
number of repair attempts. Civ. Code, § 1793.2, subd. (d), “sets forth the manufacturer's affirmative
obligation to ‘promptly’ repurchase or replace a defective vehicle it is unable
to repair…” (Rheinhart v. Nissan North
America, Inc. (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 859,
867.) “A buyer's unequivocal request for
a ‘vehicle repurchase’
is sufficient to trigger a manufacturer's duty to promptly make restitution.” (Ibid.)
However, the Requests
at issue do not concern Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s repurchase request.
Defense counsel states that Plaintiff ignored
and rejected the offer. (Haroutunian Decl. ¶ 2.) Because no settlement
agreement was ever presented to Plaintiff, the
Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff has not shown good cause for
discovery of the templates or exemplars for Defendant’s “settlement release
agreement,” or the related policies and procedures. There is no indication that
such information would be reasonably calculated to lead to evidence relevant to
Plaintiff’s claims.
The Court declines
Defendant’s request to impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for the
filing of a frivolous motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5, subd. (a).)