Judge Colin Leis, Case Number: 24STCV08794, Date: 2024-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV08794, Date: 2024-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV08794 Hearing Date: December 11, 2024 Dept: 74

Sheth v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

Plaintiff Paola Sheth’s Motion to Compel Further Reponses to Request for Production, Set One.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Paola Sheth (Plaintiff) filed her Complaint against defendant Porsche Cars North America (Defendant) alleging products liability under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly).

On June 13, 2024, Plaintiff propounded Requests for Production, Set One (RfP).

Plaintiff agreed to provide multiple extensions to Defendant.

On August 6, 2024, Defendant served verified responses.

On October 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Further.

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request filed on October 28 that the court strike Defendant’s objections

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).)

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(d).)

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

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further is timely even though Plaintiff filed and served the motion more than 45 days from the receipt of Defendant’s responses because the 45-day time limit does not run if the motion challenges only objections. (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 136; See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).) Plaintiff made a good-faith effort to meet and confer before filing the motion. (Beck Decl., ¶ 22-26.)

Plaintiff requests the Court compel further responses to RfP Nos. 7, 10, 16-23, 26-28, 32, 41, 44-47, 49-51 and 67-68.

Requests for Production Nos. 7 and 10

Request for Production No. 7 requests “[t]he Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by YOU and provided to YOUR authorized repair facility(s), within the state of California, from 2018 to the present….”

Requests for Production No. 10 requests “[a] copy of the Workshop Manual specifying diagnosis and repair procedures for vehicles of the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

Defendant objects to Request for Production Nos. 7 and 10 on the grounds that the request (1) requires Defendant to produce copyrighted material, (2) is overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, seeks information and/or documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, (3) seeks confidential material, (4) seeks documents that are irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case, (5) requires the preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary, and (6) that the request “exceeds the permissible scope of discovery and the limitations that are set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure, and /or any other applicable court rules.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Defendant’s objections that the RfP requires “the compilation, abstract, audit or summary”, and “exceeds the permissible scope… and/or any other applicable court rules” are facially impermissible boilerplate objections giving the Court the authority to compel further responses. (Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189.)

The Court finds Defendant’s objections to relevance unavailing. Defendant’s primary argument is that Plaintiff does not currently allege Defendant’s failure to follow procedures, but “the scope of allowable discovery is broader than strict relevancy to the issues raised by the pleadings…. One… reason is to enable a plaintiff to determine whether there are grounds for amending a complaint to add additional claims.” (Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 581, 596.) Plaintiff’s request is relevant to the repair history of the vehicle; therefore, Plaintiff’s request is sufficiently relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

Defendant’s assertion that it is not required to produce documents in possession of a third-party is available as a code-compliant response to a request for production. Defendant may respond that it lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection. (Roche v. Hyde (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 757, 813.) Therefore, Defendant is not relieved from providing code-compliant discovery responses simply because it may not have any responsive documents in its possession.

Request for Production Nos. 16- 28, 32, 49, 50, 67 and 68

Requests for Production Nos. 16-28 all request a variation of “[a]ll DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning… [DEFECT]… in vehicle[s] of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

Requests for Production No. 32 requests “[a]ll DOCUMENTS where refer to, reflect, or relate to any technical service bulletin… for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

Requests for Production No. 49 and 50 request “[a]ll Vehicle Warranty History Reports for the repurchased or replaced vehicles due to the [DEFECT] for the same make, model and year as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

Requests for Production NO. 67 and 68 requests “[a]ll DOCUMENTS related to [electronic communications] which in any way relate to [DEFECT] in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

Defendant objects to Request for Production Nos. 16-28, 32, 49, 50, 67 and 68 on the grounds that the request (1) requires Defendant to produce copyrighted material, (2) is overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, seeks information and/or documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, (3) seeks confidential material, (4) seeks documents that are irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case, (5) requires the preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary, and (6) that the request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery and the limitations that are set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure, and /or any other applicable court rules.

Defendant’s objections are unpersuasive. RfP Nos. 16-28, 49, 50, 67 and 68 address the very subject matter directly relevant to Plaintiff’s cases, namely documents regarding other cars of the same make, model and year that suffered from the same defect as Plaintiff’s. (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”].) RfP No. 32 is not specific to the defects Plaintiff alleges, but is still limited to the make, model and year of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff’s requests are relevant to Plaintiff’s vehicle, defects in similar vehicles, and service bulletins, and therefore is reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible information.

Defendant asserts in its opposition that the scope of discovery is overly broad for the needs of a Lemon law case and unduly burdensome. The court passes on further consideration of Defendant’s boilerplate objection unsupported by any detail.

Finally, Defendants assert that some of the documents may include privileged materials. 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”].) Defendant has failed to meet its burden of establishing a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, and a threatened intrusion that is sufficiently serious to justify its privacy objection.

Requests for Production Nos. 41, 44-47 and 51

Request for Production No. 41 requests documents used to evaluate customers’ requests for repurchases under Song-Beverly.

Request for Production Nos. 44 and 45 request documents relating to customer service responses to customer calls regarding the defects of vehicles of the same year, make and model.

Request for Production No. 46 requests documents relating to “policies, procedures and/or instructions since 2018 that YOUR employees and agents should follow when evaluating customer requests for [refunds or replacements].”

Request for Production No. 47 requests documents relating to after a decision has been made to refund or replace. This is not limited in scope to since 2018.

Request for Production No. 51 requests documents “which evidence YOUR organization charts of people within YOUR customer service call center or prelitigation department.

Defendant objects to Request for Production Nos. 41, 44-47 and 51 on the grounds that the request (1) requires Defendant to produce copyrighted material, (2) is overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, seeks information and/or documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, (3) seeks confidential material, (4) seeks documents that are irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case, (5) requires the preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary, and (6) that the request “exceeds the permissible scope of discovery and the limitations that are set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure, and /or any other applicable court rules.

The 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.) Given this obligation, Defendant defends its objections to Plaintiff’s RfP Nos. 41, 44-47 and 51 on the grounds that the requested documents do not exist. Defendant’s objection based on burden in its initial discovery response to RfP Nos. 41, 46, 47 is insufficiently detailed for the Court to uphold. Defendant’s initial objection states, in relevant part, that “[Defendant] has used countless “documents” to evaluate consumers’ requests for repurchase and it is literally impossible to identify, let alone produce, all of them” then states “[t]o the extent Plaintiff is referring to some kind of booklet or pamphlet published by [Defendant] summarizing the lemon law, none exists.” Defendant has not provided the required evidence detailing the amount of work involved, in order to support objections based upon burden and oppression. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) Therefore, Defendant has not met its burden of defending the objection based on burden.

Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 47 is overbroad on its face because it does not limit the scope of the production of documents at all.

Additionally, Defendant’s assertion that a document doesn’t exist does not relieve it of an obligation to provide code-complaint responses.

CONCLUSION

The Court grant in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses only to Request for Production No. 47.

The Court denies Defendant’s request for sanctions as unwarranted.

Plaintiff to give notice.