Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "Stavros v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC", Date: 2022-11-21 Tentative Ruling

The motion by Plaintiff Gwendolyn Lee Stavros to compel Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories, set one, is GRANTED in part.  The motion by Plaintiff Gwendolyn Lee Stavros to compel Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, (“Jaguar”) to provide further responses to Requests For Production of Documents, set one, is GRANTED in part. 

Waiver of Objections

Plaintiff contends that objections were waived because responses were not timely served.  Jaguar’s counsel states in his declaration that he spoke with plaintiff’s counsel on May 20, 2022 and was given a verbal extension to provide responses up through May 27, 2022.  However, Jaguar does not attach a written agreement regarding the extension and does not state that a written agreement exists.  CCP §2030.300(c) states that discovery responses can be served “on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.”  CCP §2031.310(c) includes a similar requirement pertaining to RFPDs.  Jaguar also makes a request for relief from waiver of objections at pages 6-7 of its Opposition.  However, such a request is required to be by separate motion.

Defendant’s objections are deemed waived as to Special Interrogatories 8, 9, 16, 21, 23, and 24 and Requests for Production of Documents 16-21, 35, 36, 38, 39 and 58-63 subject to the following limitations: (1) the definition of “YOU”, “YOUR” and “DEFENDANT” in the discovery requests shall refer to Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, only; (2) the term “ELECTRICAL DEFECT” shall refer only to the following 17 items in the Plaintiff’s vehicle:  “(1)dashboard and center console screen flickering; (2) loss of power; (3) illumination of all warning lights; (4)“caution stability control not available” message displayed; (5)vehicle shaking; (6)difficulty steering; (7)infotainment screen intermittently blacks out and/or freezes; (8)clicking noises from glove box area; (9)Bluetooth intermittently disconnects from phone; (10)Apple Carplay malfunction; (11)setting of Diagnostic Trouble Codes (“DTCs”) U2016-68 for control module main software, U3001, and B14AD-17; (12) symptoms requiring SOTA software update; (13)symptoms resulting in battery test failure; (14)symptoms requiring the performance of SSM 74732 and/or 7444; (15)battery malfunction, removal, and replacement; (16)ICM software malfunction; (17)symptoms requiring performance of Safety Recall N400NAS5.”

Special Interrogatories

Motion is GRANTED as to Special Interrogatories 8, 9, 16, and 23 and Jaguar is ordered to provide further verified responses, within 30 days, to as set forth herein.  Motion is DENIED as to Special Interrogatories 21 and 24.

Special Interrogatory Nos. 8 & 16:  Jaguar refers plaintiff to its response to interrogatory 15.1.  This is not sufficient.  Jaguar is required to include the information from 15.1 which it determines is applicable to its response to these two interrogatories.

Special Interrogatory Nos. 9 & 23:  Jaguar objects on multiple grounds.  However, Jaguar waived its right to object by serving responses late.  Accordingly, Jaguar is required to answer these two interrogatories as to what it knows at this point in time regarding plaintiff’s vehicle for the 17 items within the definition of Electrical Defect, referenced above.

Requests for Production of Documents 16-21, 35, 36, 38, 39 and 58-63

The Court notes that Defendant has served supplemental responses to some of the requests for production.  Those supplemental responses are considered herein.

The Court finds good cause has been shown for some of what is requested as documents pertaining to customer complaints on similar issues in California are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.  Further, documents regarding policies/procedures for responding to customer complaints in California is probative of whether Defendant followed the appropriate repair procedures pertaining to the subject vehicle and whether Defendant had knowledge that the repairs were inadequate.  Documents related to Defendant’s evaluation of its obligation to replace or refund under the Song Beverly Act would be relevant to Defendant’s good faith compliance with said Act.  In addition, evidence of Defendant’s knowledge of the claimed defect in other vehicles may prove relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.  (See Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 973-974, 978-979; see also, Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154.)   

However, the RFPs at issue are overbroad.  The Court will thus grant in part, to compel Defendant to respond and produce documents for these RFPs as follows:

Motion is GRANTED as to Requests for Production Nos. 16-20, 35, 36, 38, 39 and 58-63 as set forth herein and Jaguar is ordered to provide further verified answers, within 30 days.  Motion is DENIED as to Request Nos. 21 and 58-63.

Request Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 20:  Jaguar attaches to its Opposition a copy of supplemental discovery responses where it says the following in response to these requests:  “JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA.”  However, there is a word missing between “cannot” and “with” and therefore Jaguar is required to provide a further response that adds the missing word(s).

Request No. 19:  Jaguar is ordered to produce a list or compilation of customer complaints contained in Defendant's electronically stored information database, based on an electronic search thereof, that are substantially similar to the alleged defects claimed by Plaintiff in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. A substantially similar customer complaint would be the same nature of reported symptom, malfunction, dashboard indicator light, or other manifestation of a repair problem as the description given by Plaintiff of the 17 items referenced above as being an “Electrical Defect” for the subject vehicle, other than routine or scheduled maintenance items. The list provided by Defendant may be in a chart or spreadsheet format and shall include the VIN, date of repair visit, dealership or other reporting location, and text of the other customers' reported complaint, but shall not include the other customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, or other personal identifying information.

Request No. 35:  Jaguar is ordered to produce Defendant's written statements of policy and/or procedures concerning issuance of refunds or providing replacement vehicles to buyers in California from the date the subject vehicle was purchased to the date the lawsuit was filed.

Request No. 36:   Jaguar is ordered to produce Defendant's written statements of policy and/or procedures used to respond to customer complaints in California from the date the subject vehicle was purchased to the date the lawsuit was filed.

Request No. 38:  Although Jaguar states that it “has no responsive documents in its possession, custody and control to the extent it understands this request,” its response is not Code compliant.  CCP §2031.230 states: “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.”  Jaguar is ordered to provide a further response.

Request No. 39: Jaguar is ordered to produce Defendant's written statements of policy and/or procedures which its employees should follow after a decision has been made for repurchase or replacement in California pursuant to "Lemon Law" claims, including ones brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date the subject vehicle was purchased to the date the lawsuit was filed.

The Court orders Jaguar to provide further verified responses within 30 days as set forth herein.

The Court orders moving party to give notice of this ruling.