Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV36411, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s 1/23/24 evidentiary objection to the Declaration of Huizhen Lu (“Lu”) is sustained as to Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35.

Defendant fully complied with its meet and confer obligations under C.C.P. §§2016.040 and 2031.310(b). Defendant declares parties attempted to resolve this dispute via an IDC on October 5, 2023, and the discovery dispute remains unresolved. (Decl. of Sanaia ¶33.) Therefore, Defendant’s motion is proper.

On May 10, 2023, Defendant electronically served the RFP on Defendant. (Decl. of Sanaia ¶20, Exh. 8.) Defendant served unverified responses to Plaintiff’s RFP on June 8, 2023, and verifications were later served on June 30, 2023. (Decl. of Sanaia ¶23, Exh. 9.) Plaintiff declares that as of the date of the filing and serving of this Motion, Defendant has not provided Code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s RFP and has failed to produce all responsive, nonprivileged documents. (Decl. of Sanaia ¶26.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on October 18, 2023. Defendant filed its opposition on January 17, 2024. Plaintiff filed her reply on January 23, 2024.

The Civil Discovery Act provides that a “party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (C.C.P. §2031.010.)

“[E]vidence is ‘relevant’ if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement.” (Moore v. Mercer (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 424, 447.) A party is entitled to discover “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” (C.C.P. §2017.010.) The phrase “subject matter” is broader than relevancy to the issues (which determines admissibility of evidence at trial). (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392.) Courts have uniformly held that, for discovery purposes, information should be regarded as “relevant” to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant relating to Defendant’s internal investigation and analysis, among other things, of the engine defects alleged in Plaintiff’s pleading. Specifically, Plaintiff requested that Defendant produce documents concerning: (A) the Subject Vehicle (Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 12); (B) internal knowledge and investigation related to the engine defects in 2018 Buick Encore vehicles (Nos. 17, 19, 23, 25, 31, 36, 39, and 42); (C) summaries, memoranda, Power Points related to the engine defects in 2018 Buick Encore vehicles (Nos. 43 and 51) (D) policies and procedures related to the Song-Beverly Act (Nos. 56, 58, 59, and 68); (E) communication with governmental agencies and suppliers related to the engine defects in 2018 Buick Encore vehicles (Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79, and 80); and (F) other documents related to the Subject Vehicle’s defect (No. 91). (Decl. of Sanaia ¶¶20-21, Exh. 8.)

These requests seek production of documents concerning the Subject Vehicle and are narrowly tailored to a specific issue in this case. The requested documents are relevant to the issues related to Defendant’s good faith compliance with the Song-Beverly Act, including breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

Defendant’s responses are not Code-Compliant. Defendant’s response provides no explanation as to its search term protocols and provides no indication that it performed the appropriate searches for relevant ESI or emails. Further, Defendant’s boilerplate objections are not proper. (See Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516 [stating boilerplate objections “[lack] . . . the specificity the statute mandates” and their use may be sanctionable].) To the extent documents are withheld due to an objection, the response must (1) identify with particularity the document to which the objection is being made; and (2) set forth the grounds for the objection, including the production of a privilege log if the objection is based on privilege. (C.C.P. §2031.240.

Accordingly, Defendant is compelled to produce Code-Compliant responses to RFP Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 12 and corresponding documents. To the extent any responses are protected by privilege, Defendant is to produce a privilege log.

These requests pertain to internal knowledge and investigation related to the engine defects in 2018 Buick Encore vehicles. This request is narrowly tailored towards the applicable policies and procedures related to Plaintiff’s claims.

Defendant’s responses are not Code-Compliant. Defendant’s responses indicate it has not performed a search for any emails and ESI. Further, Defendant’s boilerplate objections are not proper.

Accordingly, Defendant is compelled to produce Code-Compliant responses to RFP Nos. 17, 19, 23, 25, 31, 36, 39, and 42 and corresponding documents. To the extent any responses are protected by privilege, Defendant is to produce a privilege log.

These requests pertain to summaries, memoranda, and Power Points related to the engine defects in 2018 Buick Encore vehicles that were prepared by any of Defendant’s engineers concerning the engine defect(s) in Defendant’s vehicles that are equipped with the same engine as the Subject Vehicle and is therefore narrowly tailored to the issues in this case.

Defendant’s responses are not Code-Compliant. Defendant’s responses indicate it has not performed a search for any emails and ESI. Further, Defendant’s boilerplate objections are not proper.

Accordingly, Defendant is compelled to produce Code-Compliant responses to RFP Nos. 43 and 51 and corresponding documents. To the extent any responses are protected by privilege, Defendant is to produce a privilege log.

These requests pertain to documents Defendant uses or have used, since 2020, to evaluate consumer requests for repurchases pursuant to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. This request is narrowly tailored towards the specific issues in the case.

Defendant’s responses are not Code-Compliant. Defendant’s responses indicate it has not performed a search for any emails and ESI. Further, Defendant’s boilerplate objections are not proper.

Accordingly, Defendant is compelled to produce Code-Compliant responses to RFP Nos. 56, 58, 59, and 68 and corresponding documents. To the extent any responses are protected by privilege, Defendant is to produce a privilege log.

These requests seek all documents, including ESI, regarding any communications between Defendant and any government agency or entity regarding engine defect(s) in Defendant’s vehicles that are equipped with the same engine as the Subject Vehicle. This request is narrowly tailored towards the specific issues in the case.

Defendant’s responses are not Code-Compliant. Defendant’s responses indicate it has not performed a search for any emails and ESI. Further, Defendant’s boilerplate objections are not proper.

Accordingly, Defendant is compelled to produce Code-Compliant responses to RFP Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79, and 80 and corresponding documents. To the extent any responses are protected by privilege, Defendant is to produce a privilege log.

This request seeks all documents reflecting performance standards relating to the engine in Defendant’s that are equipped with the same engine as the Subject Vehicle. This request is narrowly tailored towards the specific issues in the case.

Defendant’s response is not Code-Compliant. Defendant’s response indicates it has not performed a search for any emails and ESI. Further, Defendant’s boilerplate objections are not proper.

Accordingly, Defendant is compelled to produce Code-Compliant responses to RFP No. 91 and corresponding documents. To the extent any response is protected by privilege, Defendant is to produce a privilege log.

Under C.C.P. §2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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. §2023.030(a).)

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $3,000.00 against Defendant. (Decl. of Sanaia ¶45.) However, Plaintiff’s notice of motion failed to provide sufficient notice to Defendant of the amount of the sanction and against whom the sanctions were requested. (C.C.P. §2023.040.)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 17, 19, 23, 25, 31, 36, 39, 42, 43, 51, 56, 58, 59, 68, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, and 91 is granted. Defendant is to provide further Code-Compliant responses within 20 days.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court