Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV11564, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11564    Hearing Date: April 26, 2023    Dept: 74

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTIES:             Plaintiffs Laura Miller and Scot Gregory Miller

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant American Honda Motor, Inc.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiffs Laura Miller and Scot Gregory Miller filed this action on April 5, 2022, against Defendant American Honda Motor, Inc. (Defendant). Plaintiffs alleges violations of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act arising out of their purchase of a 2019 Honda Pilot (Subject Vehicle).

            On June 15, 2022, Plaintiffs electronically served Defendant with Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (RFPs).

            On August 8, 2022, Defendant electronically served Plaintiffs with responses to Plaintiffs’ RFPs. On October 7, 2022, Defendant electronically served Plaintiffs with further responses to the RFPs.

            Plaintiffs find Defendant’s responses to RFP Nos. 3, 13, 18, 20, 31, 35, 38, 42, 51, 53, 64, 65, 66, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, and 89 deficient and attempted to meet and confer.

            The parties were unable to resolve their dispute.

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

            The RFPs at issue relate to Defendant’s internal investigation and analysis of the defects that plagued the subject vehicle and other vehicles of the same year and make sold by Defendant. Plaintiff contends that good cause exists for the documents requested because they will tend to show whether (1) the subject vehicle suffered from a defect, (2) Defendant’s internal testing and investigation could repair the subject vehicle to conform to warranty within a reasonable number of opportunities, (3) Defendant provided its repair facilities with sufficient literature and parts to complete repairs during the warranty period, (4) Defendant knew it could not repair the subject vehicle but refused to repurchase it nonetheless, and (5) Defendant knew prior to selling the subject vehicle to Plaintiffs of the defect.

            Plaintiffs also contend that in its responses, Defendant has improperly limited the scope of discovery to include only the subject vehicle, relied on boilerplate objections, and failed to include an adequate statement of compliance or justifiable reason for noncompliance.

            In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer in good faith. However, the court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the meet and confer requirement. Defendant also argues that email production is unwarranted in this “single vehicle Lemon Law case.” But Defendant provides no authority to support this contention. Lastly, Defendant claims it has complied or promised to comply with the RFPs at issue. The court will address the RFPs at issue.

            RFP Nos. 3 and 13.

            An RFP response must include a statement of compliance, a representation that the party is unable to comply, or an objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.)

            The court finds Defendant’s responses in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230. However, Defendant’s response to RFP No. 18 suggests the Defendant is in possession of responsive documents to RFP No. 3. Moreover, in the Requests for Production, Plaintiff has defined “DOCUMENT” to include electronic emails and electronically stored information (ESI). If Defendant’s “unduly burdensome” objection applied to ESI, and Defendant refuses to search for ESI for that reason, then Defendant must identify in its response the types or categories of sources of ESI that it asserts are not reasonably accessible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (d).)

            Thus, the court finds, to the extent Defendant can locate responsive emails or electronically stored information, further response to RFP No. 3 will be necessary. As to RFP No. 13, the court finds Defendant’s response satisfactory.

            RFP Nos. 18 and 20

            In an agreement to comply, the response must be specific as to what it agrees to. It must state that the production will be allowed (in whole or in part) and that the documents or things in the demanded category that are in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control will be produced (except to the extent of any objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)

            For both RFPs, Defendant has stated that the production will be allowed in part and specified which non-confidential documents it will produce as to the defect in the subject vehicle and vehicles of the same year and make. Defendant also provided supplemental responses and agreed to produce documents related to confidential internal investigation and analysis reports involving the defect in question. However, RFP Nos. 18 and 20 seek any responsive electronically stored information and emails as well. To the extent such responsive documents exist, further response will be necessary. If Defendant cannot do so due to undue burden or expense, Defendant must amend its responses to identify the types or categories of sources of ESI that it asserts are not reasonably accessible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (d).)

            RFP Nos. 31, 38.

            For both RFPs, Defendant has responded that it is “unable to comply with this request. In an effort to comply with this request, [Defendant] made a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and has no documents responsive to this request and no such documents have ever existed in [Defendant’s] possession, custody, or control.” The court finds Defendant’s responses in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230. However, Defendant’s response to RFP No. 18 suggests Defendant is in possession of responsive documents to RFP No. 38. Moreover, RFP No. 38 covers all electronically stored information and emails. Thus, the court finds, to the extent Defendant can locate responsive emails or electronically stored information, further response to RFP No. 38 will be necessary. If Defendant cannot do so due to undue burden or expense, Defendant must amend its responses to identify the types or categories of sources of ESI that it asserts are not reasonably accessible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (d).) As to RFP No. 31, the court finds Defendant’s response satisfactory.

            RFP No. 35

            Defendant has stated that it will comply in part, specified the responsive documents it will produce (which apply to subject vehicle and generally to vehicles of the same year and make), and adds that “there are no other notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and/or recalls, incorporating the above limitations, for what Plaintiffs have defined as “INFOTAINMENT DEFECT” for 2019 Honda Pilot Elite vehicles.” However, this request also seeks ESI and emails. If Defendant’s “unduly burdensome” objection applied to ESI, and Defendant refuses to search for ESI for that reason, then Defendant must identify in its response the types or categories of sources of ESI that it asserts are not reasonably accessible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (d).) Thus, the court finds, to the extent Defendant can locate responsive emails or electronically stored information, further response to RFP No. 35 will be necessary.

            RFP Nos. 42 and 53

            For these RFPs, Defendant has stated that it will comply in part, specified the responsive documents it will produce, and added that “there are no other internal analysis or investigations, considering the above limitations, for what Plaintiffs have defined as “INFOTAINMENT DEFECT” for 2019 Honda Pilot Elite vehicles.” The court finds Defendant’s response to RFP No. 53 satisfactory. However, RFP No. 42 requests documents, and Plaintiff has defined the term to include electronic emails and electronically stored information. Thus, the court finds, to the extent Defendant can locate responsive emails or electronically stored information, further response to RFP No. 42 will be necessary. If Defendant cannot do so due to undue burden or expense, Defendant must amend its responses to identify the types or categories of sources of ESI that it asserts are not reasonably accessible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (d).)

            RFP Nos. 51 and 89

            Defendant only responds to these RFPs with objections. In its Opposition, Defendant maintains that the RFPs fail to describe with reasonable particularity the documents or categories of documents being requested in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030. However, the court finds that Defendant has adequately defined the documents sought in both of these RFPs. Additionally, both requests seek email and ESI, which are included in Plaintiff’s definition of ‘documents.’ If Defendant’s “unduly burdensome” objection applied to ESI, and Defendant refuses to search for ESI for that reason, then Defendant must identify in its response the types or categories of sources of ESI that it asserts are not reasonably accessible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (d).) Otherwise, the court finds that further response to RFP Nos. 51 and 89 will be necessary.

            RFP No. 81

            In its first further response to this RFP, Defendant stated that it will allow the production in whole and specified the communications concerning “infotainment defects” with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) it will produce. In a second further response, Defendant states that it will allow production in part and specified the communications concerning “electrical defects” with NHTSA it will produce. Accordingly, the court finds that further response will not be necessary.

            RFP No. 82

            Defendant only responded to this RFP with objections. In its Opposition, Defendant maintained that it properly objected on the ground that the request does not sufficiently specify any particular alleged defect. However, the court finds “an actual or suspected infotainment system-related condition, issue, problem, or defect,” as stated in the RFP, specifically describes the item sought, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030, subdivision (c). Thus, further response is necessary for RFP No. 82.

            RFP No. 83

            Defendant objects to this request, in part, because it seeks “Early Warning Reports” as to all Honda vehicles equipped with the same infotainment system as the subject vehicle, but fails to specify the defect to which the warning would pertain. Even so, Defendant responded in part and agreed to produce Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) warranty submissions for vehicles of the same year and make as the subject vehicle. Accordingly, the court finds that further response for this RFP is unnecessary.

            RFP No. 84

            This request seeks TREAD reports Defendant submitted concerning vehicles with the same infotainment system as the subject vehicle. Defendant responded by agreeing to produce its TREAD warranty submissions for vehicles of the same year and make as the subject vehicle. Further response is unnecessary.

            RFP No. 85

            This request seeks all NHTSA complaints in Defendant’s possession relating to infotainment defects in Honda vehicles. In its further response, Defendant maintains that it made a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with this request and has no NHTSA complaints which relate to what Plaintiffs have defined as “infotainment defect” in 2019 Honda Pilot Vehicles. The court finds that this response is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 because it does not clarify whether the complaints never existed, or what happened to them if they did. Moreover, the response does not provide the name and address of who Defendant believes might possess the complaints if they do in fact exist. Thus, a further response is necessary for this RFP.

            RFP Nos. 64 and 65

            Defendant responded to RFP No. 64 by stating, “[Defendant] has no written policies or procedures, used to evaluate consumer’s requests for repurchases pursuant to Song-Beverly Consumer Warrant Act and no responsive documents have ever existed in [Defendant’s] possession, custody, or control. Consumer requests for repurchases are evaluated on a case-by-case basis under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.” Moreover, Defendant responded to RFP No. 65 by stating “[Defendant] has made a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with the request and has no responsive documents setting forth rules, policies, and/or procedures concerning the issuance of refunds to buyers or providing replacement vehicles . . . under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and no such documents have ever existed in [Defendant’s] possession, custody, or control. Repurchase or replacement requests are evaluated on a case-by-case basis under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.” Both RFPs seek documents, which Plaintiff has defined to include emails and ESI. Thus, the court finds, to the extent Defendant can locate responsive emails or electronically stored information, further response to RFP Nos. 64 and 65 will be necessary. If Defendant cannot do so due to undue burden or expense, Defendant must amend its responses to identify the types or categories of sources of ESI that it asserts are not reasonably accessible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (d).)

            RFP No. 66

            Defendant responded to this request by allowing the production in whole and specifying the documents it would produce. Further response is unnecessary.

            RFP No. 76

            Defendant responded to this request by stating, “[Defendant] has no such responsive documents related to ‘the handling of Lemon Law obligations” and no such documents have ever existed in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. Each such request is handled in good faith on a case-by-case basis under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.” Defendant’s response lacks a statement to the effect it made a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230. Moreover, this request seeks documents, which Plaintiff has defined to include emails and ESI. If Defendant cannot do provided ESI due to undue burden or expense, Defendant must amend its responses to identify the types or categories of sources of ESI that it asserts are not reasonably accessible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (d).) Thus, further response will be necessary.

            RFP No. 77

            Defendant responded to this request by stating “the requested production will be allowed in whole and, and [Defendant] will produce its document retention policy. Further response will be unnecessary.

            RFP No. 78

            Defendant responded to this request with objections. In its Opposition, Defendant maintained that the request failed to describe with reasonable particularity the documents or categories of documents sought. The court finds Plaintiff’s request for Defendant’s recall policies and procedures sufficiently particular. Further response will be necessary.

CONCLUSION

                Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses as to RFPs 3, 18, 20, 35, 38, 42, 51, 64, 65, 76, 78, 82, 85, and 89. The court orders Defendant to serve on Plaintiffs complete, Code-compliant, further responses, without objections to these requests and to produce all documents in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control which are are responsive to same within 30 days of the date of this order.

            The court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses as to RFPs 13, 31, 53, 66, 77, 81, 83, 84.

                Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿April 26, 2023

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court