Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 21STCV39407, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties
concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon
resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an
agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if
you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by
notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDept71@LACourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.


Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear
at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue
the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties
in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to
argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words
"SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.
If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via
Court-Connect.

If
the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling,
the Court will take the matter off calendar.




            Note
that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.

        If you
submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or
thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the
court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Plaintiff Eileen Vines’ motion to compel compliance with this Court’s July 12, 2023 Ruling compelling Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. to provide further responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) Nos. 20, 23, 44, and 47 is granted. Defendants are to comply within 20 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is granted against Defendant is the amount of $2,160.00.

Plaintiff Eileen Vines (“Vines”) (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (“AHMC”) (“Defendant”) to comply with this Court’s July 12, 2023 Ruling compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”) Nos. 20, 23, 44, and 47. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2031.310 et seq.)

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,160.00 for Defendant’s failure to comply with this Court’s July 12, 2023 Ruling and for cost incurred in filing the instant motion. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2031.310 et seq.)

On October 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed her operative complaint against AHMC alleging five causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act §1793.2(d); (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act §1793.2(b); (3) Violation of Song-Beverly Act §1793.2(A)(3); (4) Violation of Song-Beverly Act §1794 and Civil Code §1791.2(a)- Breach of Express Written Warranty; and (5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Civil Code §§ 1791.1, 1794, 1795.5. (See Complaint.) Plaintiff alleges on or about July 15, 2019, she purchased a 2019 Honda Accord (“Subject Vehicle”) that contained or developed serious defects including electrical and brake defects. (Complaint ¶¶8, 10.)

On July 5, 2022, Plaintiff propounded her first set of RFPs on Defendant, seeking documents relating to Defendant’s internal investigation and analysis of the electrical defects and brake defects, including documents concerning: (A) the Subject Vehicle (i.e., RFP No. 2) and (B) internal knowledge and investigation related to the electrical defects and brake defects in 2019 Honda Accord vehicles (i.e., RFP Nos. 20, 23, 44, and 47). (Decl. of Littles ¶¶22, 23, Exh. 6.) On August 12, 2022, Defendant provided its responses that consisted of boilerplate objections, responses that were not Code-compliant, and failed to produce all responsive documents. (Decl. of Littles ¶24, Exh. 7.) Defendant then provided further responses to Plaintiff on February 17, 2023, and April 6, 2023. (Decl. of Littles ¶¶25-26, Exhs. 8-9.) On July 12, 2023, this Court ruled on Plaintiff’s motion for compel further responses to RFP Nos. 2, 20, 23, 44, and 47. (7/12/23 Minute Order.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on September 15, 2023. On October 24, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation to continue the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to December 8, 2023. On November 27, 2023, Defendant filed its opposition. Plaintiff filed her reply on December 4, 2023.

On November 8, 2023, parties met and conferred via videoconference, and again on November 29, 2023, and spoke telephonically on December 1, 2023. (Decl. of Carvalho ¶16.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares Plaintiff proposed a list of search terms to be used in searching custodial emails responsive to RFP Nos. 20, 23, 44, and 47, but Defendant has refused to perform a good faith search in this case. (Decl. of Carvalho ¶20.) Plaintiff has demonstrated a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve discovery issues outside of court. (C.C.P. §§2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2).)

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (C.C.P. §2031.320(a).)

This Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to request further responses to RFP Nos. 20, 23, 44, and 47, and to the extent responses are subject to privilege, Defendant was ordered to produce a detailed privilege log specify the date of the document; the type of document; the name of the documents author(s); the names of the recipient(s), including the names of those receiving copies; and the nature and basis of the privilege claimed. (7/12/23 Minute Order, pg. 3.)

Plaintiff argues Defendant agreed to produce NHTSA communications related to electrical and brake defects. (Decl. of Carvalho ¶9.). Defendant has not produced any NHTSA documents to Plaintiff. Defendant has not produced any documents related to NHTSA Investigation PE22-0003, in which NHTSA investigated CMBS issues in certain Honda vehicles, including 2019 Honda Accords (like the Subject Vehicle). Plaintiff argues these documents are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and are responsive to Plaintiff’s RFP Nos. 20 and 23. (See Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, 344.)

Further, during meet and confer efforts, Defendant proposed search terms, all of which are QIS numbers, which are insufficient to yield the emails this Court ordered Defendant to produce.

Defendant is ordered to conduct the following email searches for RFP Nos. 20 and 23, limited to the date range of one year before Plaintiff’s purchase of the Subject Vehicle (purchased on May 31, 2019), to the present:

3. (Accord OR [Platform]) AND (CMBS OR brak*) AND (Sudden* OR unexpect* OR unintent* OR spontan* OR inadvert* OR accident *))

Further, Defendant is ordered to produce the following custodians’ NHTSA communications:

a. Jeff Chang: Honda Division Head, Product Safety, Product Regulatory Office who was involved in Honda’s internal investigation that provided responses to the NHTSA CMBS Investigation.

Defendant is ordered to conduct the following email searches for RFP Nos. 44 and 47, limited to the date range of one year before Plaintiff’s purchase of the Subject Vehicle to the present:

1. (Accord OR [Platform]) AND ((Bluetooth OR BT OR hands-free OR handsfree OR pair*) AND (call OR audio OR register* OR del*) AND (problem OR err* OR unabl* OR (not AND work))

2. (Accord OR [Platform]) AND (“Display Blank”) AND (Date=2018-05-31..2023-11-30)

4. (Accord OR [Platform]) AND ((display OR image OR audio OR nav* OR gps OR camera OR RVC) AND (blank OR freez* OR froz* OR failur*))

“Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (C.C.P. §2031.320(b).)

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant is granted. Plaintiff’s counsel declares her hourly rate is $360/hour, and she spent approximately six hours drafting the instant motion. (Decl. of Theophil ¶9.) The Court calculates sanctions as follows:

Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $2,160.00 within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with this Court’s July 12, 2023, Order is granted. Defendants are to comply within 20 days of this ruling.

Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $2,160.00 within 20 days.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court