Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV10759, Date: 2024-07-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10759    Hearing Date: July 1, 2024    Dept: 14

Ramos v. American

Case Background

This is a lemon law case. Plaintiff Maria Ramos sued defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. on May 12, 2023. Plaintiff claims she purchased a 2016 Honda Odyssey (“Vehicle”) on or around January 1, 2016. The Vehicle subsequently exhibited substantial defects during its warranty period, and Defendant failed to provide replacement or restitution when Defendant failed to repair the Vehicle after a reasonable number of attempts.

On May 22, 2024, Plaintiff moved for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of documents (“RPDs”).

On June 17, 2024, Defendant opposed.

On June 24, 2024, Plaintiff replied.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to RPDs (Set One)

Meeting and Conference

            A motion to compel further RPD responses requires a meet and confer declaration that satisfies Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(2).) Plaintiff’s counsel submits a declaration attesting to numerous conferences with Defendant’s counsel and multiple extensions for Defendant to provide supplemental responses. (See Beck Decl., ¶¶ 26-57.) Sections 2031.310(b)(2) and 2016.040 are satisfied.

Timeliness

            A motion to compel further responses must be brought within forty-five days of the opposing party’s most recent supplemental response or before any later date agreed upon in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) Here, the parties agreed in writing that Plaintiff would have until May 24, 2024 to file. (Beck Decl., ¶ 55 and Exh. 27.) Plaintiff filed on May 22, 2024, two days prior. The motion is timely.

Decision

            The motion is GRANTED IN PART as to Requests Nos. 16, 18-23, and 41.

            The motion is DENIED as to Requests Nos. 17 and 56.

Discussion

            Substance of Requests

            Plaintiff moves for further responses to her RPDs Nos. 16-23, 41, and 56.

            The Court paraphrases Plaintiff’s RPDs as follows:

Although Defendant provided partial responses to each RPD, each response was accompanied by various boilerplate objections including overbreadth, vagueness, undue burden, seeking information outside the bounds of discoverability, failure to identify categories of documents with particularity, intrusion on confidential information, and attorney-client or attorney work-product privilege.

            Plaintiff’s requests are standard lemon law discovery. Most of Defendant’s objections lack merit. And Defendant’s partial responses and lengthy meet-and-confer efforts demonstrate it is willing and able to respond.

Defendant has also not provided any clear statement that conforms to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240.

            That said, the Court finds Defendant’s overbreadth and vagueness objections well-taken in several instances, and so a limited order is warranted.

            Scope of Order

            The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion in part, on the following terms:

            As to RPDs Nos. 16, 18-23, and 41, Defendant’s objections are overruled in part, and Plaintiff’s motion granted only as to equivalent vehicles sold within the state of California. With each response, Defendant must provide a sworn statement stating its compliance according to sections 2031.220, 2031.230, or 2031.240 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

            As to RPDs Nos. 17 and 56, Defendant’s objections are sustained in their entirety, and Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

            Sanctions

            A party unsuccessfully opposing a motion to compel further responses – as Defendant has here – must ordinarily be subject to monetary sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(h).) But Plaintiff has requested none here. The Court awards no sanctions.

Conclusion

            The motion is granted in part as to Requests Nos. 16, 18-23, and 41.