Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 22STCV10663, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10663    Hearing Date: October 18, 2023    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No. 

Scutter vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et. al., Case No. 22STCV10663

Tentative Ruling re:  Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff Kendrick Scutter (Plaintiff) moves to compel Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Defendant) to provide further responses to the Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 29-41 and 45-48. The motion is denied as to Nos. 31 and 46-48, and denied as to the remaining interrogatories as moot.  The request for sanctions is denied.

A motion to compel further responses to form or specially prepared interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)  

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220, a responding party’s answer to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits,” and “[i]f an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” It is improper for an answer to only respond to a portion of the information sought, particularly when an interrogatory is specific and explicit. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)

“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 Special Interrogatories (Set One) on Defendant on June 9, 2022. (Than Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant served initial responses on August 4, 2022. (Than Decl. ¶ 4.)

Since the filing of this motion, Defendant has served further responses to Nos. 29-30, 32-41, and 45. (Hancox Decl. ¶ 19.) The parties agree that the motion is now moot as to all interrogatories except Nos. 31 and 46-48.

No. 31 reads, “Describe YOUR policies and procedures for proactively complying with the Song-Beverly Act in California by offering a repurchase of a qualifying vehicle without a consumer request to do so.” Defendant objected to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and irrelevant. The Court agrees with Defendant that Defendant’s policies for “proactive compliance” are irrelevant as to whether, in this case, Defendant satisfied its duty under the Song-Beverly Act to replace or promptly make restitution for Plaintiff’s vehicle. (Civ. Code § 1793.2, subd. (d).)

Interrogatory Nos. 46 through 48 seek statistical information related to repair rates on vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle. No. 46 reads, “State the repairs per thousand vehicles sold (R/1000) for 2016 Honda CR-V vehicles.” No. 47 reads, “Identify in order the five symptoms with the highest repairs per thousand (R/1000) for 2016 Honda CR-V vehicles, and the corresponding repairs per thousand.” No. 48 reads, “Identify in order the five components with the highest repairs per thousand (R/1000) for 2016 Honda CR-V vehicles, and the corresponding repairs per thousand.”

            The Court finds that these interrogatories seek irrelevant information and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff argues that the vehicle’s repair rates are relevant to whether the vehicle has undergone a “reasonable number” of repair attempts. (Civ. Code § 1793.2, subd. (d).) However, Plaintiff has shown no authority indicating that a “reasonable number of repair attempts” is defined with reference to the average repair rate for the vehicle model. (See CACI No. 3203.) Additionally, for Nos. 47 and 48, the requests for the vehicle model’s most-repaired symptoms and components in general are not reasonably calculated to reach information concerning the specific defects alleged to affect Plaintiff’s vehicle. Accordingly, the motion is denied as to Nos. 31 and 46 through 48.

            Because the motion is denied in part, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.