Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV07804, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07804    Hearing Date: October 27, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Date:               10/27/22 (8:30 AM)                           

Case:               Carolyn Michelle Santos v. FCA US, LLC et al. (22STCV07804)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Carolyn Michelle Santos’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff Carolyn Michelle Santos moves to compel further responses from defendant FCA US, LLC to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20-22, 27, 28, 30-32, 42, 43, 50 and 70-75.

The Court finds that plaintiff demonstrates good cause for the discovery sought. Based on plaintiff’s allegations regarding electrical and engine defects in the subject vehicle (Compl. ¶ 15), plaintiff is entitled to discovery which is probative of defendant’s knowledge of these defects in 2020 Jeep Compasses, 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.)

Any willfulness in violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act would entitle plaintiff to a civil penalty not exceeding two times the amount of actual damages. (Compl. ¶ 28 [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 instances of the defects about which plaintiff complains may evidence defendant’s knowledge that the electrical system and engine were not repairable and therefore defendant had an obligation to replace or repurchase the vehicle under Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2).

After the motion was filed, defendant served supplemental responses. (Neubauer Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. A.)

Plaintiff argues that the supplemental responses are not compliant. For requests to which defendant states that additional responsive documents may be in the possession of co-defendant Bravo Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Alhambra, plaintiff argues that defendant is in custody or control of those documents. Plaintiff provides no evidence of this assertion. Defendant’s reference to the dealership in responses does not necessarily render the responses not code compliant.

Plaintiff also argues that defendant did not explain its search term protocols. However, there is no such statutory requirement.

Plaintiff also moves to strike defendant’s objections to the discovery. The Court declines to do so. Defendant does not indicate that it withheld any documents based on objections. The Court notes that defendant is entitled to object that the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” include entities not in defendant’s control.

Plaintiff argues that defendant did not search certain databases. Defendant listed the databases that it searched where the responsive documents were “most likely to be found.” Defendant is only required to conduct a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in the attempt to comply with document requests. (CCP § 2031.230.) If plaintiff unearths evidence indicating defendant has not been diligent and reasonable and/or intentionally failed to search certain databases to conceal responsive documents, then plaintiff may seek any relief to which she believes she is entitled at that time, including a jury instruction for willful suppression of evidence and/or other appropriate sanction(s).

Defendant’s supplemental responses to Requests Nos. 7, 8, 22, 32, 42, 43, 50, and 74 are fully compliant with CCP § 2031.220. Defendant states it complied in full and produced all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control.

Defendant’s supplemental responses to Request Nos. 11, 12, 17, 18, 20, 21, 27, 28, 30, 31, and 70-73 comply with CCP § 2031.230. Defendant stated it conducted a reasonable search and diligent inquiry and that no responsive documents, including emails, exist or have existed.

The responses to Request Nos. 1 and 75, however, are not fully code-complaint. Defendant states it complied in full and stated the documents that will be included in the production. However, defendant did not state 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,” as required by CCP § 2031.220.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART. The motion is DENIED as to Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20-22, 27, 28, 30-32, 42, 43, 50 and 70-74. With respect to Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 1 and 75, no later than fifteen (15) days hereof, defendant FCA US, LLC is ordered to provide Code-compliant, verified further responses and produce responsive documents.  To the extent that certain documents that defendant agreed to produce have not been produced, defendant FCA US, LLC is ordered to produce such documents within fifteen (15) days hereof.