Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV15970, Date: 2024-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15970    Hearing Date: October 30, 2024    Dept: 74

Pena v. FCA US LLC et al.

Plaintiff Liliana Pena’s Motion to Compel Further Responses.

BACKGROUND 

             On July 10, 2023, plaintiff Liliana Pena (Plaintiff) filed her Complaint against Defendant FCA US LLC (Defendant) alleging products liability under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

            On September 26, 2023, Plaintiff propounded Requests for Production, set One.

            On October 26, 2023, Defendant served unverified responses.

            On December 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Motion to compel further responses.

            On October 17, 2024, Defendant served supplemental responses.

LEGAL STANDARD

            The propounding party may bring motions to compel inspection or further responses to interrogatories or requests for production if it believes (1) the responses received are evasive, or (2) incomplete, or (3) if the objections raised are meritless or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a).) A respondent has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed to compel further responses. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)  

            California Rules of Court rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery, including motions to compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents, contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses.  (CRC, rule 3.1345(a).)

Meet and Confer

            This motion must be accompanied by a good-faith meet-and-confer declaration.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b).)  “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate… involves the exercise of discretion.”  (Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016.)  “The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant.  Judges have broad powers and responsibility to determine what measure and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances.”  (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff has complied with all procedural requirements.  Here, it is undisputed that Defendant’s responses served on October 26 were unverified.   The motion to compel is timely.  Plaintiff also made good-faith efforts to meet and confer prior to the instant motion beginning on September 27, 2023, and continuing through December 4, 2023.  (Lee Decl., ¶¶ 19-28.)

Defendant served supplemental responses to the Requests for Production No. 17-19 and 21, making the motion moot for those requests for production.

Request for Production Nos. 16 and 20

            Request for Production No. 16 requests all documents and electronically stored information relating to any internal analysis or investigation by the defendant regarding the electrical defect in vehicles of the same year, make and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle.

            Request for Production No. 20 requests all documents and electronically stored information concerning the failure rates of vehicles of the same year, make and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle.

            Defendant objects to RFP Nos. 16 and 20 on the grounds that the requests do not provide sufficient information to identify the documents, that the term “ELECTRICAL DEFECT” lacks foundation and is vague, ambiguous, argumentative, misleading, nonsensical and not limited to “any part, component or system that could be subject to any communications.”  (Separate Statement, p. 2.) 

Defendant also objects to the production of the ESI because it is unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery, and not proportional to the needs of this case.

Defendant also objects to the requests alleging that they violate client confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege and seek attorney work product. 

Finally, Defendant objects that the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” are overly broad and compound because they include entitles not owned or operated by FCA US.

Defendant’s objections are unpersuasive.  First, the request is sufficiently definite as to the “ELECTRICAL DEFECT” as it identifies the warning messages, notifications and repair history of the relevant vehicle.  (See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 [“A party may not deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive answer.  [Citations.]  Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.”  [Citations.].)   Similarly, the request is not vague, ambiguous or overbroad.  The requests address the very subject matter directly relevant to Plaintiff’s case, namely documents about the same defect about which Plaintiff complains, including documents about other cars of the same make, model and year that suffered from the same defect.  (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010 [scope of discovery encompasses not just specific claims and defenses but “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter”].)  Third, Defendant has not shown that the production would be unduly burdensome because Defendant asserts, but does not describe, any burden.  Finally, Defendant also objects to the use of “YOU” claiming it extends to entities beyond Defendant’s control, but the definitions from the Request for Production show otherwise. 

Defendant objects to the request based on the attorney-client privilege. Defendant’s assertion is unavailing.  Defendant has failed to provide “sufficient factual information… to evaluate the merits of any claimed privilege” because it provides no information establishing the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, right to privacy, or trade secret privilege as it relates to the requested documents.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(c)(1); Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 [rejecting “the de facto starting assumption that such an egregious invasion [of privacy] is involved in every request for discovery of private information” and holding that “[c]ourts must instead place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies”].) 

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production Nos. 16 and 20.