Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV21739, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21739    Hearing Date: April 20, 2023    Dept: 72

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Date:               4/20/23 (8:30 AM)                                           

Case:               Antone Drinkard v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al. (22STCV21739)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Antone Drinkard’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Antone Drinkard moves to compel further responses from defendant Nissan North America, Inc. to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1, 8, 13, 18, 20, 32, 37, 44, 56, 61, 109, 111, 122, 125, 127, 128, 131, 133, and 134.

With respect to Nos. 1, 8, 13, 18, 20, 32, 37, 44, 56, 61, 125, 127, 128, 131, 133, and 134,

based on plaintiff’s allegations regarding and/or evidence of attempts to repair transmission and hood latch defects in the subject vehicle (Compl. ¶ 13; Tirmizi Decl. ¶¶ 4-8 & Ex. 1), plaintiff is entitled to discovery that is probative of defendant’s knowledge of such defects in 2017 Nissan Altima, 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.4^th 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 plaintiff to a civil penalty not exceeding two times the amount of actual damages. (Compl. ¶¶ 44, 51, 54 [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 transmission and hood latch was not repairable and therefore defendant had an obligation to replace or repurchase the vehicle under Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2).

With respect to Nos. 109, 111, and 122, plaintiff is 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”].)

The motion is GRANTED. Within fifteen (15) days hereof, defendant Nissan North America, Inc. is ordered to serve further responses, without objection, to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1, 8, 13, 18, 20, 32, 37, 44, 56, 61, 109, 111, 122, 125, 127, 128, 131, 133, and 134.