Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV32268, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32268    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

Date:               8/23/22 (8:30 AM)                             

Case:              Jorge Pina Alonso et al. v. Kia Motors America (21STCV32268)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Jorge Pina Alonso and Ivonne Maltos’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses from defendant Kia America, Inc. to Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 30-33, 45, and 46, as set forth below:

• REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:  All DOCUMENTS that YOU utilize to determine whether a vehicle is eligible for a repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2019.

• REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:  All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe YOUR policies, procedures and/or instructions since 2019 which YOUR authorized repair facilities should follow regarding customer requests for a refund of the price paid for a vehicle pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act.

• REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies and procedures from 2016 to the present for proactively complying with the Song-Beverly Act in California by offering a repurchase or replacement of a qualifying vehicle without a consumer request to do so.

• REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33 :  All Technical Service Bulletins which have been issued for the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

• REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45:  All DOCUMENTS evidencing complaints by owners of 2016 KIA SORENTO vehicles regarding any of the complaints that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented to YOUR or YOUR authorized repair facilities for repair during the warranty period.

• REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46:  All DOCUMENTS evidencing warranty repairs to 2016 KIA SORENTO vehicles regarding any of the components that YOU or YOUR authorized repair facilities performed repairs on under warranty.

With respect to Request Nos. 30-33, defendant argued in its opposition that plaintiffs did not meet and confer with defendant before moving to compel further responses to those requests. Defendant’s assertion is well taken. On June 13, 2022, plaintiffs sent defendant a meet and confer letter addressing Request Nos. 17, 35-43, 45, and 46. (Kreymer Decl, ¶ 6 & Ex. C.) On June 20, 2022, defendant responded to plaintiffs’ letter, addressing the same requests discussed by plaintiffs. (Kreymer Decl, ¶ 7 & Ex. D.) On June 24, 2022, plaintiffs replied to defendant, stating, “In particular, Plaintiffs wish to address Defendant’s deficient responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents Numbers: 17, 35-43, 45 and 46.” (Kreymer Decl, ¶ 8 & Ex. E.) At no time did plaintiffs meet and confer with defendant about Request Nos. 30-33 before filing this motion, as required by CCP §§ 2031.310(b)(2) and 2016.040. (See CCP § 2016.040 [“A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion”].) Plaintiffs do not directly address defendant’s argument except to state in a conclusory fashion that they satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (Reply at 3:22-4:7.) Accordingly, the motion as to Request Nos. 30-33 is DENIED. 

With respect to Request Nos. 45, plaintiffs demonstrate good cause for the discovery sought. Request No. 45 asks for all documents evidencing complaints by 2016 Kia Sorento owners regarding any of the complaints about which plaintiffs’ vehicle was presented for repair.

Based on plaintiffs’ allegations regarding engine and transmission defects in their vehicle (FAC ¶¶ 12, 23, 67, 69), plaintiffs are entitled to discovery that is probative of defendant’s knowledge of engine and transmission defects in 2016 Kia Sorentos, including in vehicles other than the subject vehicle, and defendant’s handling of complaints. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143-44; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 973-74, 994.) Responses to Request No. 45 may yield evidence of what defendant knew regarding the repairability of the engine and transmission in the subject vehicle at the time plaintiffs presented their vehicle for repair, as well was what defendant knew at the time it failed to replace or repurchase their vehicle.

Any willfulness in violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act would entitle plaintiffs to a civil penalty not exceeding two times the amount of actual damages. (FAC ¶ 120 [allegation that defendant’s failure to comply with Song-Beverly was willful]; Civ. Code § 1794(c); CACI 3244.) A defendant is willful under Civil Code § 1794(c) when the defendant “knew of its legal obligations and intentionally declined to follow them.” (CACI 3244.) Defendant’s knowledge gained from other 2016 Kia Sorento owners’ complaints may evidence defendant’s knowledge that the engine and transmission were not repairable and therefore defendant had an obligation to replace or repurchase the vehicle under Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2).

Defendant’s concerns about the privacy of its customers can be efficiently addressed with electronic redaction of identifying information of customers.

With respect to Request No. 46, however, plaintiffs do not demonstrate good cause for the discovery. Request No. 46 asks for documents evidencing warranty repairs to 2016 Kia Sorento vehicles regarding any components that defendant or its repair facilities repaired. The request is not limited based on the problems for which plaintiffs presented the subject vehicle for repair. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 221 [discovery devices “should be well calibrated; the lancet is to be preferred over the sledge hammer”].)

Because the term “component” is not narrowly defined, plaintiffs are seeking all documents concerning warranty repairs for 2016 Kia Sorentos, regardless of whether the repair concerned the engine or not.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART. The motion is DENIED as to Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 30-33 and 46. The motion is GRANTED as to Request for Production, Set One, No. 45. Within fifteen (15) days hereof, defendant Kia America, Inc. shall serve a further verified response, without objection, to Request for Production, Set One, No. 45 and serve responsive documents to this request with identifying information of customers redacted.

Given the mixed result, plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.