Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV22397, Date: 2025-04-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV22397 Hearing Date: April 29, 2025 Dept: 74
Magana et
al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al.
Defendant Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.’s Motion for Protective Order
BACKGROUND
This
motion arises from a Song-Beverly action.
Plaintiffs
Jazmin L. Magana and Daisy De La Cruz (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against
defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Defendant) for a violation of the
Song-Beverly Act.
On
March 17, 2025, Plaintiffs served defendant with Special Interrogatories,
Requests for Admissions and Requests for Production. In response, Defendant now
filed a Motion for a Protective Order.
LEGAL STANDARD
After
a demand for inspection or request for documents is propounded, the party to
whom the demand has been issued may move for a protective order upon a showing
of good cause. (Code of Civ. Proc. §
2031.060.) The moving party must show
that the order is necessary to protect the party from unwarranted annoyance,
embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.060(b).) “The issuance and formulation of protective
orders are to a large extent discretionary.” (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
(2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 316.) “[T]he burden is on the party seeking the
protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought.” (Id. at p. 318.)¿¿
DISCUSSION
Defendant moves for a protective order on the
grounds that Plaintiff’s requests are excessive, burdensome, and
unnecessary. Plaintiffs propounded
discovery requests on March 17, 2025.
Plaintiffs’ requests include 33 special interrogatories, 45 requests for
admission, and 142 Requests for Production.
(Roberson Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant
requests that the Court order that Defendant need not respond to Special
Interrogatories Nos. 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29 and 30, and Request for
Admission Nos. 36-45. Additionally,
Defendant requests that the Court strike the entirety of the Requests for
Production or substantially limit the number of requests Defendant is entitled
to answer.
In
California, discovery is liberally granted.
(Borse v. Superiro Court (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 286, 289.) Plaintiff is generally entitled to discovery
regarding “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter
involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in
that action.” (Code of Civ. Proc. §
2017.010.)
Defendant’s
primary argument is that the requested discovery is excessive given the nature
of lemon law litigation. Defendant cites
no authority supporting that this discovery is unwarranted in this case. Defendant provides no support for its claim
that the burden is undue. (West Pico
Furniture Co. of Los Angeles (1963) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) Defendant substantially expands the scope of
the motion in the reply, nevertheless, Defendant still fails to provide support
for the claim of undue burden. Defendant
does not meet its burden in establishing good cause for the motion.
Defendant
challenges in the Reply that Plaintiffs must justify all Requests for Admission
over 25 under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.040, subsection
(a). This is a new legal argument
brought in the reply. Therefore, the
Court does not consider Defendant’s argument.
(Mendoza v. Trans Valley Transport (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 748,
770.)
Defendant
fails to meet its burden in establishing that good cause exists for the Court
to issue a protective order.
CONCLUSION
The
Court denies Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order.
Defendant
to give notice.