Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2022-00031002-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 11, 2024

01/12/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00031002-CU-BC-CTL MONTIEL MONDRAGON VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiffs Victor Montiel Mondragon and Samantha Schmidt Del Prado's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant American Honda Motor Co. and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED.

Discussion This is a lemon law case. Plaintiffs allege they leased a 2019 Honda Odyssey with warranties from Defendant. Defects, including those to the electrical system and other nonconformities to warranty, manifested. The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act.

This motion seeks to compel a further response to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 18, 45-46 and 48-49. On December 29, 2023, and more than six months after Plaintiffs met and conferred twice (which Defendant ignored), Defendant served further responses to Nos. 18, 48 and 49 with their opposition to this motion. In reply, Plaintiff acknowledges Nos. 18, 48 and 49 are moot.

Requests Nos. 45 and 46 remain at issue. Request No. 45 asks for all '[documents] evidencing complaints by owners of 2019 Honda Odyssey 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.' Request No. 46 asks for all '[documents] evidencing warranty repairs to 2019 Honda Odyssey vehicles regarding any of the components that [you] or [your] authorized repair facilities performed repairs on under warranty.' Defendant's objections to Nos. 45-46 lack merit and require a further response. (C.C.P., § 2031.310(a)(3).) These requests seek matter that appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and are limited to Plaintiffs' vehicle or the 2019 Honda Odyssey. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 973 (trial court granted motion to compel production of all warranty complaints received on vehicle models for certain years); see also, Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 152-53 (ruling evidence concerning the same make and model vehicle showing the same non-conformities as the subject vehicle evidenced the defendant failed to conform the subject vehicle to warranty).) In addition, Civil Code section 1794(c) provides if a buyer establishes the defendant willfully failed to comply with its obligations, he/she is entitled to recover a civil penalty and a decision made without the use of reasonably available information germane to that decision is not a Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2986931  55 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  MONTIEL MONDRAGON VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC  37-2022-00031002-CU-BC-CTL reasonable, good faith decision. (See, Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, 345-346 (holding evidence of a manufacturer's internal awareness of an ineffective repair to a defect was sufficient to support civil penalty damages under Civ. Code § 1794(c); Lukather v. General Motors, LLC (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1051-52 (ruling the plaintiff's testimony and manufacturer's telephone logs permitted the trial court to make reasonably inferences the manufacturer 'knew or reasonably should have known from the information available from the dealer,' the vehicle was a lemon).) Under the broad scope of discovery, the documents are discoverable.

Defendant has not met its burden justifying any of the other objections. (Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549-50.) (explaining the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting the discovery and the objecting party did not supply supporting evidence to assess whether any responsive burden would be undue or excessive relative to the likelihood of admissible evidence being discovered).) To the extent Defendant's objections rest on a trade secret privilege or are otherwise protected by privacy, the objections cannot be adequately assessed. (See, C.C.P., § 2031.240(c)(1).) Defendant does not provide any evidence supporting the application of the privileges cited nor a privilege log.

The sanctions sought are authorized, substantiated, reasonable and warranted. (C.C.P., § 2031.310(h); ROA 49 – Declaration of Thach Tran.) Under C.C.P. section 2031.310(h), the Court 'shall impose' a monetary sanction. Further, Defendant fails to provide evidence of substantial justification or other circumstances that would make imposition of the sanction unjust. Defendant served further responses to the majority of requests at issue with its opposition and the objections to the remaining requests lack merit. (California Rules of Ct., rule 3.1348(a) [The court may award sanctions even though the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed].) At most, Defendant cites to its counsel's high volume of cases for ignoring both of Plaintiff's meet and confer letters for over a month. This is not a valid excuse for failing to meet and confer. In addition, serving further responses on the day of its opposition deadline implicitly conceded the objections lacked merit. It also frustrated the motion process, requiring Plaintiffs to assess the adequacy of the discovery responses and reply to the motion within five court days of the motion's hearing.

For these reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

Concluding Orders Defendant is ordered to: (i) serve a further, verified, code-compliant (see, C.C.P., §§ 2031.210, et seq.) response without objections, which includes document production, to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 45-46, by February 2, 2024; and (ii) pay monetary sanctions of $3,220 to Plaintiff by February 2, 2024.

If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, the minute order will be the Court's final ruling.

Plaintiffs are ordered to serve written notice of the Court's final ruling on all appearing parties by January 16, 2024, unless all parties submit on the tentative ruling or waive notice at the hearing.

Defendant is reminded to comply with Department 70's Policies and Procedures and to provide courtesy copies of all motion paperwork.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2986931  55