Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV13447, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13447    Hearing Date: April 10, 2024    Dept: 14

Lopez v. Ford Motor Company

Case Background

Lemon law case involving Plaintiff’s 2020 Ford Escape.

On June 12, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability and (2) Breach of Express Warranty against Defendants Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and DOES 1-20.

On July 20, 2023, Defendant Ford filed its Answer.

Jury Trial is currently set for March 17, 2025.

(1)       Special Interrogatories

            Plaintiff now moves this court for an order compelling Defendant Ford to serve further responses to their Special Interrogatory Nos. 40 and 42-45.

Decision

            The motion is GRANTED. Defendant Ford is to serve verified further responses within 30 days.

Discussion

The questions at issue read as follows:

“[40] Identify the individual(s) whose responsibility it is to supervise to ensure that YOU are properly determining whether a vehicle should be repurchased or replaced pursuant to the Song Beverly Warranty Act.

[42] Explain with particularity all aspects of YOUR investigation into whether the SUBJECT VEHICLE qualified or was eligible for repurchase or replacement pursuant to the Song-Beverly Warranty Act.

[43] IDENTIFY all PERSON(S) involved in YOUR investigation by full name, address, and telephone number, including any individuals with whom YOU communicated regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

[44] Identify all DOCUMENTS consulted, reviewed and/or obtained in YOUR investigation.

[45] IDENTIFY all PERSON(S) responsible for YOUR decision to not repurchase or replace the SUBJECT VEHICLE by full name, address, and telephone number.” (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement).[1]

To No. 40, Defendant Ford objected on the grounds that there was no time period specified. Defendant Ford then provided the following boilerplate objection, which it repeated for Nos. 42-45:

“Plaintiff did not request a repurchase or replacement of the subject vehicle before filing this lawsuit. Further, this is a lemon law case under Cal. Civil Code § 1790 et seq., and the subject matter of this case revolves exclusively around the subject vehicle. In addition, Ford objects to this Interrogatory because it is broad enough to seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine, as the Interrogatory could encompass information that reflects the legal advice, mental impressions, and legal strategies prepared for anticipated or pending litigation by Ford's attorneys, Ford's Office of the General Counsel, or those working under their direction and supervision.” (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement).

This is not an answer to Plaintiff’s question. But it does clearly suggest an answer. And it hard to see how experienced counsel on both sides of this dispute were unable to work towards that answer.

            Question No. 40 needs no temporal limitation because of the way it is phrased. It asks Defendant Ford to identify the person whose responsibility “is” to supervise certain processes. Use of the verb in the present tense limits the time period to the present – the moment the question is asked. Defendant Ford could respond simply to this question in at least three straightforward ways: (1) answer that there is no such person, (2) answer with the formal job title of the person but indicate that the person who currently holds that job is not the person who held it prior to filing the complaint, or (3) identify the person who currently holds that job.

            The broader issue addressed by all these questions is Defendant Ford’s statutory obligation to repurchase a car that it cannot repair. Civil Code § 1793.2(c). Defendant Ford (as manufacturers frequently do) takes the position that this obligation must be triggered by a request from the consumer. Plaintiff (as consumers frequently do) takes the position that the obligation is affirmative and no such triggering event is required.

            Defendant Ford’s concern is that as phrased, the questions could be interpreted as an inquiry into why Defendant Ford has chosen to contest this lawsuit. The concern is a valid one. But there is a way to answer the questions without waiving that issue. Rather than evade the question by saying that Plaintiff never asked for a repurchase, Ford could simply say that no such investigation was undertaken except in preparation for this litigation, and that any such investigation is protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges.

            Such an answer would leave the parties free to litigate their positions about Ford’s legal obligations. And it would leave Plaintiff free to litigate (if she wished) the need for a privilege log and the application of the privilege to this case.

Conclusion

            These questions are not difficult to read or answer. Defendant Ford can give more meaningful answers without waiving any valid privilege objections they may have. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant Ford is to serve verified further responses within 30 days.

(2)       RFPs

            Plaintiff now moves this court for an order compelling Defendant Ford to serve further responses to their Requests for Production (“RFP”) Nos. 1, 3, 5, 9, 14, 16, 23, 30, and 89-91.

Decision

            The motion is GRANTED in part. Defendant Ford is to serve verified further responses to RFP Nos. 1, 3, 5, 16, 23, 30, and 89-91 within 30 days. The motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 9 and 14.

Discussion

             RFP Nos. 1, 3, and 5 ask for repair orders and warranty documents that apply to the Plaintiff’s car. Defendant Ford’s responses contain two primary things – (1) a statement that the requests are overbroad and seek irrelevant information, and (2) the statement that Plaintiff should seek this information from the dealerships directly. Neither is a sufficient objection. Repair orders and warranty documents are plainly relevant in a lemon law case. And the dealerships are representatives of Defendant Ford, which Defendant Ford is required to maintain under Civil Code § 1793.2(a). Unless there is some reason Defendant Ford cannot obtain these records from its dealerships, it must do so.

            RFP Nos. 9 and 14 are facially overbroad. RFP No. 9 asks for all recall documents which pertain to Plaintiff’s vehicle. But not all recalls will necessarily be relevant to the defect at issue in this case. Plaintiff must re-frame this request and limit it to recalls which relate to the defects alleged in this case. RFP No. 14 asks for all documents evidencing any communication relating to Plaintiff’s vehicle. That request is so broad as to be virtually meaningless.

            RFP Nos. 16, 23, 30, and 89-91 seek relevant information but, if read in a certain way, would include Defendant Ford’s legal files for this case. This issue was discussed above. The court’s guidance above applies here. Defendant Ford can identify and produce the items that were not prepared in anticipation of this litigation, and can withhold documents that were. Then the parties can discuss their positions on the privilege with a clearer idea of what they’re talking about.