Judge Colin Leis, Case Number: 21STCV04164, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendants’ Person Most Knowledgeable

On February 2, 2021, Plaintiff Robert Thomas (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Hyundai Motor America (Defendant). In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged violations of the Civil Code, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and fraud by omission.

From 2021 to 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with multiple notices of deposition of its person most knowledgeable (PMK). However, Defendant did not produce its PMK.

On November 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK. On July 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK.

On September 14, 2023, the court ordered the parties to file a joint statement identifying all unresolved issues.

“The service of a deposition notice . . . is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . without having served a valid objection . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

As a preliminary matter, the court notes that Defendant has agreed to produce its PMK for a deposition. But the parties dispute the scope of the matters for examination and Plaintiff’s document requests, each of which the court will address in turn:

This matter is moot because Defendant has withdrawn its objections and agreed to produce its PMK to testify about the information sought.

These matters are moot because Defendant has withdrawn its objections and agreed to produce its PMK to testify about the information sought.

Plaintiff seeks testimony about the timing, nature, and extent of Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant’s PMK’s testimony shall address vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. The testimony need only cover the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase. Last, the testimony need only pertain to the specific defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff seeks testimony about Defendant’s investigation and analysis of Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant’s PMK’s testimony shall address vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. The testimony need only cover the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase. Last, the testimony need only pertain to the specific defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff seeks testimony about Defendant’s internal communications about Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant’s PMK’s testimony shall address vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. The testimony need only cover the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase. Last, the testimony need only pertain to the specific defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff seeks testimony about Defendant’s communications with the NHTSA regarding Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant’s PMK’s testimony shall address vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. The testimony need only cover the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase. Last, the testimony need only pertain to the specific defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff seeks testimony about Defendant’s communications with Hyundai Corporation about Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant’s PMK’s testimony shall address vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. The testimony need only cover the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase. Last, the testimony need only pertain to the specific defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff seeks testimony about quality information reports about Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant’s PMK’s testimony shall address vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. The testimony need only cover the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase. Last, the testimony need only pertain to the specific defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff seeks testimony about model line reports about Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant’s PMK’s testimony shall address vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. The testimony need only cover the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase. Last, the testimony need only pertain to the specific defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff seeks testimony regarding quality problem reports about Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant’s PMK’s testimony shall address vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. The testimony need only cover the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase. Last, the testimony need only pertain to the specific defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff seeks testimony about executive summaries about Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant’s PMK’s testimony shall address vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. The testimony need only cover the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase. Last, the testimony need only pertain to the specific defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.

This matter is moot because Defendant has agreed to produce its PMK to testify about the information sought. (Joint Report, pp. 11-12.)

Plaintiff seeks testimony about technical countermeasures or changes made in response to the occurrence of Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant’s PMK’s testimony shall address vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. The testimony need only cover the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase. Last, the testimony need only pertain to the specific defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.

This matter is moot because Defendant has agreed to produce its PMK to testify about the information sought.

Plaintiff seeks testimony about the repairability of Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant’s PMK’s testimony shall address vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. The testimony need only cover the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase. Last, the testimony need only pertain to the specific defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff seeks testimony about the NHTSA investigation RQ17-004 as it relates to the Theta II engine in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant objects that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Moreover, Defendant points out that investigation RQ17-004 relates to earlier model year versions of the subject vehicle. (Joint Statement, p. 12:8-9.) Accordingly, Defendant’s PMK need not testify about this matter.

Plaintiff seeks testimony about document and information requests Defendant received from NHTSA pursuant to investigation RQ17-004 as it relates to the Theta II engine in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant objects that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Moreover, Defendant points out that investigation RQ17-004 relates to earlier model year versions of the subject vehicle. (Joint Statement, p. 12:8-9.) Accordingly, Defendant’s PMK need not testify about this matter.

Plaintiff seeks testimony about information, responses, and documents Defendant produced pursuant to NHTSA investigation RQ17-004 as it relates to the Theta II Engine in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant objects that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Moreover, Defendant points out that investigation RQ17-004 relates to earlier model year versions of the subject vehicle. (Joint Statement, p. 12:8-9.) Accordingly, Defendant’s PMK need not testify about this matter.

Plaintiff seeks testimony about Defendant’s policies, procedures, and instructions provided to dealerships in connection with the sale of Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant has agreed to produce its PMK witness for this matter if the testimony is limited to the timeframe when Win Hyundai Carson sold the subject vehicle to Plaintiff. For his part, Plaintiff has not persuaded the court that testimony beyond this timeframe is necessary. Thus, Defendant shall produce its PMK to testify about the policies, procedures, and instructions in effect when Win Hyundai Carson sold the subject vehicle to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff seeks testimony about Defendant’s policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Defendant objects that this request lacks a sufficiently defined timeframe. Accordingly, Defendant’s PMK shall testify about the relevant policies and procedures in place when Plaintiff had the subject vehicle repaired or requested repurchase.

Plaintiff seeks testimony about Defendant’s warranty, service, and repair policies and procedures. Defendant objects that this request lacks a sufficiently defined timeframe. Accordingly, Defendant’s PMK shall testify about the relevant policies and procedures in place when Plaintiff had the subject vehicle repaired or requested repurchase.

This request is moot because Defendant has agreed to produce responsive documents.

These requests are moot because Defendant has agreed to produce responsive documents.

This request seeks production of documents that NHTSA requested from Defendant pursuant to investigation RQ17-004 as it related to the Theta II engine in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant objects that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Moreover, Defendant points out that investigation RQ17-004 relates to earlier model year versions of the subject vehicle. (Joint Statement, p. 12:8-9.) Accordingly, Defendant need not produce documents responsive to this request.

This request seeks production of documents that Defendant produced to NHTSA pursuant to investigation RQ17-004 as it relates to the Theta II engine in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant objects that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Moreover, Defendant points out that investigation RQ17-004 relates to earlier model year versions of the subject vehicle. (Joint Statement, p. 12:8-9.) Accordingly, Defendant need not produce documents responsive to this request.[1]

This request seeks production documents concerning Defendant’s investigation and analysis of Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce responsive documents concerning defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant need only produce documents from the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase.

This request seeks production of documents concerning Defendant’s internal communications about Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce responsive documents concerning defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant need only produce documents from the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase.

This request seeks documents concerning Defendant’s communications with NHTSA regarding Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce responsive documents concerning defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant need only produce documents from the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase.

This request seeks production of documents concerning decisions to recall Hyundai Sonata vehicles due to Theta II engine defects. Defendant objects in part that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle (2015 Hyundai Sonata). Moreover, Defendant asserts it did not recall the 2015 Hyundai Sonata. Accordingly, Defendant need not produce documents responsive to this request.

This request seeks documents concerning the cost or risk to Defendant of NHTSA fines or penalties for Defendant’s actions or inaction concerning Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects on the grounds of attorney-client privilege but has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant objects that the request assumes facts not in evidence. However, the request can be interpreted to include the risk or cost of fines for the conduct that Plaintiff alleges Defendant committed. Defendant further objects that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce responsive documents concerning defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant need only produce documents from the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase.

This request seeks quality information reports about Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce responsive documents concerning defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant need only produce documents from the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase.

This request seeks production of model line reports about Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce responsive documents concerning defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant need only produce documents from the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase.

This request seeks production of quality reports about Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce responsive documents concerning defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant need only produce documents from the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase.

This request seeks production of quality problem reports about Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce responsive documents concerning defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant need only produce documents from the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase.

This request seeks production of major quality problem reports about Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce responsive documents concerning defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant need only produce documents from the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase.

This request seeks production of executive summaries about Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce responsive documents concerning defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant need only produce documents from the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase.

This request seeks production of documents concerning technical countermeasures or changes made in response to occurrence of Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant objects that this request may seek proprietary information or private information about customers. But Defendant has not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. In addition, Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce responsive documents concerning defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant need only produce documents from the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase.

This request seeks production of Technical Service Bulletins and recalls for Theta II Engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant has withdrawn its objections and agreed to produce responsive documents applicable to 2015 Hyundai Sonatas. (Joint Report, p. 11:9-11.) This is sufficient.

This request seeks production of documents concerning decisions to issue technical service bulletins, recalls, and campaigns for Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant has agreed to produce the technical service bulletins, recalls, and campaigns relating to the 2015 Hyundai Sonata. This is sufficient.

This request seeks production of documents concerning the repairability of Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce responsive documents concerning defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant need only produce documents from the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase.

This request seeks production of documents concerning complaints to NHTSA about Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce responsive documents concerning defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant need only produce documents from the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase.

This request seeks production of documents concerning the incidence of Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce responsive documents concerning defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant need only produce documents from the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase.

This request seeks production of documents concerning the severity of Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce responsive documents concerning defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant need only produce documents from the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase.

This request seeks production of warranty claims for Theta II engine defects in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. The court agrees in part. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce warranty claims for the defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant need only produce the warranty claims from the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase.

This request seeks documents evidencing the failure rates for Theta II engines in Hyundai Sonata vehicles. Defendant maintains that this request is irrelevant, overbroad, harassing, and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the 2015 Sonata and the timeframe and engine defect are not sufficiently defined. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce responsive documents that show the failure rates of Theta II engines in 2015 Sonatas due to the defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint for the period before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, in addition to when Plaintiff had it repaired or requested repurchase.

This request seeks documents that Defendant has used since 2015 to evaluate vehicles for repurchase or replacement under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Defendant has agreed to produce the documents it used when Plaintiff had the subject vehicle repaired or made his repurchase request. Plaintiff has not persuaded the court that documents falling outside this timeframe are necessary. Thus, Defendant’s production shall be limited to those Defendant relied on when Plaintiff had the subject vehicle repaired and requested repurchase.

This request seeks Defendant’s Warranty and Policy Manuals provided to its repair facilities within the State of California from 2015 until now. Defendant has agreed to produce the Warranty and Policy Manual in effect when Plaintiff had the subject vehicle repaired or made his repurchase request. Plaintiff has not persuaded the court that prior versions of the manual are necessary. Thus, Defendant shall produce the entire Warranty and Policy Manual in effect when Plaintiff had the subject vehicle repaired or requested repurchase.

This request seeks Defendant’s agreements with the dealership that sold the subject vehicle to Plaintiff as they relate to the sale of Hyundai vehicles. Defendant objects that this request is overbroad and should be limited to the timeframe when Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle. Plaintiff has not persuaded the court that agreements outside this timeframe are necessary. Thus, Defendant shall produce the relevant agreements in place when Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle.

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of the following matters and categories subject to the limitations discussed above: Matter Nos. 8 [sic], 9 [sic], 10 [sic], 11 [sic], 12 [sic], 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 26, 35, 36, 37, 43, in addition to Document Request Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 52. The court denies Plaintiff’s motion with respect to Matter Nos. 28, 29, and 30, as well as Document Request Nos. 17, 18, 24. The following Matter Nos. are moot: 1, 2, 5-12, 18, 20. The following Document Requests are moot: 1, 4-12, 14-16, 41, 42, 49, 51. Defendant shall produce its person most knowledgeable within 30 days of this order.

[1] The court notes that Plaintiff seeks documents produced pursuant to other NHTSA investigations (Joint Report, pp. 4:18-26, 5: 1-3), which are outside the scope of this request.