Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV07158, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07158    Hearing Date: January 17, 2023    Dept: 72

SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

Date:               1/17/23 (8:30 AM)                                           

Case:               Marco Aguiar et al. v. FCA US, LLC et al. (22STCV07158)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Marco Aguiar and Nancy Vanegas’ Second Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is DENIED.

Plaintiffs Marco Aguiar and Nancy Vanegas move to compel further responses from defendant FCA US LLC to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 77, 78, 80, 82, 83, and 84, as set forth below:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 77: All DOCUMENTS related to any electronic mail (including current, backed-up and archived programs, accounts, unified messaging, server-based e-mail, Web-based e-mail, dial-up e-mail, usernames and addresses, domain names and addresses, e-mail messages, attachments, manual and automated mailing lists and mailing list addresses) which in any way relate to STALLING DEFECTS in JEEP VEHICLES.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78: All DOCUMENTS related to any electronic mail (including current, backed-up and archived programs, accounts, unified messaging, server-based e-mail, Web-based e-mail, dial-up e-mail, usernames and addresses, domain names and addresses, e-mail messages, attachments, manual and automated mailing lists and mailing list addresses) which in any way relate to TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in JEEP VEHICLES.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning the effectiveness of TSB 21-028-19, including any prior versions and any subsequent revisions.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 82: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning the effectiveness of TSB 18-035-19, including any prior versions and any subsequent revisions.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 83: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning Diagnostic Trouble Code (“DTC”) P0919.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 84: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning DTC P00DF.

The document requests at issue were the subject of a motion to compel further response heard on September 1, 2022. The Court found that defendant’s objections were without merit and ordered defendant to serve further responses and responsive documents, without objection, to the subject document requests within 30 days thereof. The document requests were limited to the same make, model, and year as plaintiffs’ vehicle.  Defendant served supplemental responses on September 30, 2022. (Neubauer Decl. ¶ 32, Ex. 15.) Plaintiffs maintain that the supplemental responses are incomplete or non-responsive.

With respect to Request No. 77, defendant’s supplemental response states that defendant conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and determined that responsive documents have never existed. This is all that CCP § 2031.230 requires. (CCP § 2031.230 [“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”].)

Plaintiffs nonetheless asserts that a TSB concerning stalling was issued. (Pl. Sep. Stmt. at 8:1-9.) Even if true, Request No. 77 seeks emails and related documents, not TSBs, relating to stalling defects. Defendant is entitled to contend that documents have never existed.

With respect to Request Nos. 78, 80, 82, 83, and 84, defendant’s supplemental responses are sufficient. Defendant states that it has complied in full. This is all that CCP § 2031.220 requires. (CCP § 2031.220 [“A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production”].)

In the statements of compliance, defendant lists the responses it maintains are responsive to the requests. With respect to Request Nos. 80, and 82, plaintiffs maintain defendant agreed to produce documents concerning the decision to issue a TSB, whereas the requests seek documents pertaining to the effectiveness of the TSB. (Neubauer Decl. ¶ 34.) Because Request Nos. 80 and 82 reference “prior versions” of the TSBs at issue, defendant may contend that documents concerning the decision to issue such TSBs are responsive, as such documents concerning the prior version of the TSBs referenced in Request Nos. 80 and 82 may bear on the effectiveness of the subject TSBs. 

To the extent plaintiffs discover that documents encompassed within the document requests at issue in the instant motion were unreasonably withheld, or if plaintiffs unearth evidence indicating defendant has not been diligent and reasonable and/or intentionally failed to search certain databases to conceal responsive documents, then plaintiffs may seek any relief to which they believe they are entitled at that time, including a jury instruction for willful suppression of evidence and/or other appropriate sanction(s).

Because defendant’s supplemental responses served on September 30, 2022 are sufficient, the motion is DENIED.