Judge Carolyn M. Caietti, Case Number: 37-2023-00020002-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2023-00020002-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-10 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 09, 2024

05/10/2024 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 Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00020002-CU-BC-CTL WINDLE VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 10/16/2023

Plaintiffs Bobbie Windle and Govfundme, LLC's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC is GRANTED.

Discussion This is a lemon law case. Plaintiffs allege on December 22, 2021, they purchased a 2022 Land Rover Range Rover. Defendant warranted the vehicle. Serious defects and nonconformities to warranty developed including, but not limited to, engine, electrical and structural system defects.

Defendant's objections lack merit, warranting 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' own vehicle (Nos. 1-15); Defendant's warranty and repurchase policies, procedures and practices (Nos. 16-30); and Defendant's knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make and model (Nos. 31-32). (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 opposition, Defendant concedes Nos. 1-2, 5-6, 9-13 and 14-15 are relevant to the case.

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 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 Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3038295 48 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: WINDLE VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00020002-CU-BC-CTL 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).) Here, Defendant did not provide any declaration explaining the projected burden and how it would be undue.

Similarly, to the extent Defendant's objections rest on privacy or other privilege, 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.

However, to provide for additional protection and as is normally the practice in these lemon law cases, the Court will order the records produced under a protective order. (See, City and County of San Francisco v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 66, 84 (rejecting Uber's contention the trial court's order should be reversed on the basis administrative subpoenas invade the privacy and confidentiality interests of Uber or third parties where a protective order was in place).) Defendant may also redact personal identifying information such as social security numbers and financial account information, but not names and contact information.

For these reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

Concluding Orders Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC is ordered to serve a further, verified, code-compliant (see, C.C.P., �� 2031.210, et seq.) response without objections and redactions (except as to personal identifying information described above), which includes document production, to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1-32 by June 28, 2024.

Unless the parties provide written consent or obtain a court order, any records produced pursuant to this ruling shall not be disclosed to any person other than: (i) counsel for the parties to this case; (ii) counsel's employees; (iii) individual parties or party-officers/employees to the extent deemed necessary by counsel for the prosecution or defense of this litigation; (v) consultants or expert witnesses retained in the litigation; (vi) authors or recipients of the records. Further, if a party seeks to use these records at trial or to adjudicate any matters, the party must comply with California Rules of Court 2.550 and 2.551 and first obtain a court order to do so.

Plaintiffs are ordered to prepare and submit a proposed order to Defendant, including any other language the parties agree to for the protective order(s) (and the parties are encouraged to use the LASC Model Protective Order), in accordance with any applicable laws and court rules by May 15, 2024.

Defendant is ordered to respond to Plaintiffs regarding the protective order by May 20, 2024. The parties are ordered to submit the proposed order(s) by May 24, 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 May 14, 2024.

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

3038295 48