Judge Curtis A. Kin, Case 22STCV15177 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV15177, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15177 Hearing Date: February 28, 2023 Dept: 72

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

Date: 2/28/23 (8:30 AM)

Case: Guadalupe Solorzano Hernandez et al. v. FCA US LLC (22STCV15177)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Guadalupe Solorzano Hernandez and Leonardo Infante Solorzano’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs Guadalupe Solorzano Hernandez and Leonardo Infante Solorzano move to compel further responses from defendant FCA US LLC to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 24, 29, 30, 34-41, and 45-48. Defendant objected that each of the interrogatories at issue in this motion is “not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.” (Thomas Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. B.)

As a preliminary matter, Special Interrogatory No. 42 was in plaintiffs’ separate statement, but plaintiffs did not discuss No. 42 in the moving points and authorities. In the reply, plaintiffs clarify that they are not seeking a further response to No. 42. (Reply at 3, fn. 1.)

Defendant contends that plaintiffs did not adequately meet and confer in good faith before filing this motion. On October 21, 2022, after defendant served responses on plaintiffs, plaintiffs served defendant with a meet and confer letter. (Thomas Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. D.) While page 4 of the letter contains a reference to “Special Interrogatories 24, 25, 29-32, 34-41, 45-48,” which includes all the interrogatories at issue in this motion, plaintiffs asserted that defendant’s objections were boilerplate without explaining how each of the subject interrogatories was relevant to plaintiffs’ causes of action. (Thomas Decl. Ex. D. at 4-5.) “[A]ttempting informal resolution means more than the mere attempt by the discovery proponent to persuade the objector of the error of his ways . . . . [T]he law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) Plaintiffs’ conclusory assertion that defendant’s objections were boilerplate arguably did not constitute an adequate effort to meet and confer.

Nevertheless, on November 3, 2022, defendant responded that it “stands by its Code compliant responses to these interrogatories and respectfully disagrees that any further response is required.” (Thomas Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. E.) Defendant did not attempt to justify its objections, including the objection based on a purported lack of relevancy. Nor did defendant say that it was willing to discuss its contention that the subject interrogatories were irrelevant with plaintiffs.

In the “determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate,” “[a]n evaluation of whether, from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the discovering party, additional effort appeared likely to bear fruit, should also be considered.” (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431-32.) Plaintiffs explain the relevance of each of the subject interrogatories in the moving papers. (Mtn. at 3:21-5:21.) Nevertheless, defendant maintains that the interrogatories are irrelevant. (Opp. at 6:7-7:6.) Under these circumstances, even if plaintiffs had explained the relevance of each interrogatory during the meet and confer process, it would appear unlikely defendant would have provided further responses. Accordingly, the Court rules on the merits of the motion.

Based on plaintiffs’ allegations regarding defects in the subject vehicle (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 29), plaintiffs are entitled to discovery that is probative of defendant’s knowledge of defects in 2019 Dodge Charger vehicles, 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, 154-55 [evidence pertaining to defects in same model transmission in vehicles other than subject vehicle is relevant to Song-Beverly claim]; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 973-74, 993 [evidence pertaining to similar problem in other vehicles other than subject vehicle are highly relevant].)

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. (Compl. ¶ 25 [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 plaintiffs complain may evidence defendant’s knowledge that the vehicle was not repairable and therefore defendant had an obligation to replace or repurchase the vehicle under Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2).

The interrogatories at issue in the instant motion are as follows:

INTERROGATORY NO. 24: IDENTIFY by name and job title all persons that evaluate eligibility for a vehicle repurchase on behalf of FCA US LLC pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act from 2020 to the present.

INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Do the individuals that YOU task with evaluating a vehicle repurchase have access to warranty data for similar customer complaints or vehicle repairs?

INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Describe the manner in which YOU track the number of FCA vehicles that have been repurchased or replaced in California, if at all, from 2020 to the present.

INTERROGATORY NO. 34: State the name of YOUR department(s) or division(s) that monitors vehicle warranty trends.

INTERROGATORY NO. 35: State the name(s) of YOUR department(s) or division(s) that are responsible for TREAD Act compliance.

INTERROGATORY NO. 36: State the name of YOUR department(s) or division(s) that self-reports on behalf of YOU to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding vehicle safety concerns.

INTERROGATORY NO. 37: List each database, system or software used to store, query, or analyze requests for a vehicle repurchase made by California consumers.

INTERROGATORY NO. 38: List each database, system, or software used to store, query, or analyze warranty repair data.

INTERROGATORY NO. 39: List each database, system, or software used to store, query, or analyze condition, issue, problem, or defect occurrence rates.

INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Describe how YOU track warranty repair data for California vehicles from 2020 to the present.

INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Describe how YOU track customer complaints for California vehicles from 2020 to the present.

INTERROGATORY NO. 45: At the time of release for the 2019 Dodge Charger, VIN: 2C3CDXGJ4KH681534 vehicles, state your anticipated range for repairs per thousand vehicles sold (R/1000).

INTERROGATORY NO. 46: State the repairs per thousand vehicles sold (R/1000) for 2019 Dodge Charger, VIN: 2C3CDXGJ4KH681534 vehicles.

INTERROGATORY NO. 47: Identify in order the five symptoms with the highest repairs per thousand (R/1000) for 2019 Dodge Charger, VIN: 2C3CDXGJ4KH681534 vehicles, and the corresponding repairs per thousand.

INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Identify in order the five components with the highest repairs per thousand (R/1000) for 2019 Dodge Charger, VIN: 2C3CDXGJ4KH681534 vehicles, and the corresponding repairs per thousand.

Nos. 24, 29 and 30 pertain to defendant’s policies and procedures for reviewing repurchase requests. Plaintiffs are entitled to inquire whether warranty, repair, and diagnostic procedures are designed to encourage refusals of repair or repurchase requests. (Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101, 1104-05 [evidence of willfulness in refusing to repair or repurchase the evidence existed because “there was evidence that Isuzu adopted internal policies that erected hidden obstacles to the ability of an unwary consumer to obtain redress under the Act”].)

Nos. 34-41 pertain to defendant’s tracking of warranty repairs and customer complaints. Nos. 45-48 pertain to repairs in vehicles of the same make, model, and year as the subject vehicle. Nos. 34-41 are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence concerning the information available to defendant concerning defects in the subject vehicle and defendant’s obligation to replace or repurchase the vehicle considering the availability of such information. (See Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 185–186 [“[A] manufacturer who refused a refund or replacement on the ground a reasonable number of repair attempts had not been made, without making any effort to gather the available information on repair history, might well be deemed to have acted willfully”].)

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s objections based on relevance are without merit. The motion is GRANTED. Within fifteen (15) days hereof, defendant FCA US LLC is ordered to serve further responses, without objection, to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 24, 29, 30, 34-41, and 45-48.

Based on plaintiffs’ conclusory initial meet and confer letter, the Court finds it would be unjust to impose a monetary sanction on defendant. Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.