Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV47324, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47324    Hearing Date: October 4, 2023    Dept: 74

Raluca Pereira v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a defective 2019 Land Rover Range Rover Sport (Subject Vehicle).

            On February 8, 2023, Plaintiff Raluca Pereira (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (Defendant). The complaint alleges breach of implied warranty of merchantability and breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Act.

            On April 25, 2023, Plaintiff propounded on Defendant requests for production of documents (RFPs).

            On May 1, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with responses. Plaintiff was dissatisfied with Defendant’s responses and the parties met and conferred multiple times.

            On July 21, 2023, Defendant served further responses. However, Plaintiff was still dissatisfied with Defendant’s responses to RFP Nos. 9 and 37-135.

            On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 9 and 37-135.

LEGAL STANDARD 

            ¿¿A propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to a demand for inspection if the propounding party deems that an answer or statement of compliance is evasive or incomplete, or that an objection is “without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) Such a motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery sought and be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (b), 2031.210, subd. (b).) ¿  

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff argues good cause exists for discovering the documents sought in RFP Nos. 9 and 37-135. The discovery at issue is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims that the subject vehicle contains defects, Defendant knew about those defects, and Defendant was unable to rectify those defects. In addition, the documents would help Plaintiff address Defendant’s potential affirmative defenses. Plaintiff also clarifies that the documents only concern vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Lastly, Plaintiff has met and conferred with Defendant about the discovery at issue. Because Plaintiff has shown good cause for the discovery, the burden is on Defendant to justify its objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct. (Guess?, Inc.) (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

            Defendant asks the court to deny Plaintiff’s motion because Defendant has responded to the “bulk” of Plaintiff’s requests. (Opposition at p. 4.) That Defendant has responded to some RFPS does not excuse it from providing satisfactory responses to the others, though.

In its responses to RFP Nos. 37-135, Defendant has applied the same boilerplate objections. Such objections are too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(3).) First, Defendant argues the requests are vague because they cover issues unrelated to Plaintiff’s complaints about the subject vehicle, often involve different vehicles, and seek information irrelevant to the underlying cause of the subject vehicle’s defects. But Defendant’s opposition does not attempt to demonstrate how its vagueness objection applies to any particular request of the nearly 100 at issue; it is not the court’s obligation to make an objecting party’s arguments for the party by the court’s teasing from the record which parts of boilerplate objections apply to a particular request for production and which do not – asking a court to discern, differentiate, and develop from boilerplate objections an objecting party’s arguments improperly asks the court to be an advocate for one side of the discovery dispute. (Opposition pp. 5-7.) Defendant also contends that the requests are overbroad because they cover all of Defendant’s vehicles “for a long period of time and an entire state of nearly 40 million people, which is home to more cars than any other state.” (Opposition, at p. 8.) However, Defendant has not fleshed out this objection to apply it to any request in particular. Defendant further asserts the requests are burdensome because they cover all of California and encompass years of records, compilations, statistics, policies, and procedures. Once again, though, Defendant has not shown how this objection applies to particular requests. Defendant also claims a party is not required to prepare new records in response to a request to compile or summarize information in a form that does not exist at the time of the request. But Defendant has not cited any authority in support. Finally, Defendant contends the requests seek proprietary and confidential information of Defendant and its customers. But the court notes that the parties have already stipulated to a protective order.

            But RFP No. 9 remains. This request seeks all documents related to the subject vehicle. Defendant responded that it would produce a list of the field actions and technical bulletins about the subject vehicle, as well as field actions and technical bulletins identified in the repair history. Defendant also refers Plaintiff to websites where further information is available. As Plaintiff notes, though, Defendant’s response is not code-compliant because it does not state whether the production will be allowed in full or in part. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) Nor does the response state that all requested documents in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) Thus, a code-compliant response will be necessary. In addition, Defendant shall produce any internal analysis or investigation regarding defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle.  This includes Recall Notices and Technical Service Bulletins.

CONCLUSION

                Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 9 and 37-135. The court orders Defendant to serve on Plaintiff complete, code-compliant, further responses to these requests and to produce all documents in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control which are responsive to same within 30 days of the date of this order.

                Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.