Judge David A. Rosen, Case Number: 22GDCV00346, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 22GDCV00346, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCV00346 Hearing Date: August 18, 2023 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 08/18/2023 – 11:00am
Case No: 22GDCV00346
Trial Date: 01/22/2024
Case Name: ARSHAD MOHAMMAD, an individual, and A&Z AUTOBODY SHOP, INC., a California Corporation v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1-10

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiffs, Arshad Mohammad and A&Z Autobody Shop Inc. move for an order to strike Defendant, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.’s objections and compel further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 1-39.

Plaintiffs brings this Motion pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2031.310, and 2031.320, on the grounds that Defendant failed to provide adequate responses to Plaintiffs’ RFPs, which seek documents relevant to their Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”) causes of action.

Procedural

Moving Party: Plaintiffs, Arshad Mohammad and A&Z Autobody Shop Inc. (Plaintiffs)
Responding Party: Defendant, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (Defendant or TMS)

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok
Proper Address (CCP §1013, §1013a, §1013b): Uncertain – The Court’s file lists Defendant’s counsel’s email address as sbrignoni@rosewaldorf.com. The moving papers were not served to that email address. However, the Defendant submitted Opposition; therefore, it appears as if Defendant received this motion.

Moving Papers: Motion; Separate Statement; Pfeffer Declaration; Proposed Order

Opposition Papers: Opposition; Separate Statement; Skanes Declaration

Reply Papers: Reply; Evidentiary Objections

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on 06/22/2022 alleging three causes of action for: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty, and (3) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2.

The instant action surrounds allegations pertaining to a 2018 Lexus GS-F that Plaintiffs purchased on December 18, 2017. Plaintiffs allege that the Subject Vehicle was delivered to Plaintiffs with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to, electrical, suspension, and structural system defects.

MOVING ARGUMENTS
Plaintiffs argue that Defendant asserted boilerplate objections and failed to provide code-compliant responses. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant failed to abide by its obligations under CCP § 2031.210(d) by objecting to several requests on the ground of undue burden but failing to identify the types or categories of sources of electronically stored information that are not reasonably accessible.

Plaintiffs argue that RFPs, Set Two, seek documents relating to: (1) Plaintiffs’ own vehicle (RFP Nos. 2, 3, 4); (2) Defendant’s warranty and repurchase policies, procedures, and practices (RFP Nos. 1, 5, 6); and (3) Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle. (RFP Nos. 7-39).

Plaintiffs also argue that Defendant failed to produce a single document in response to the Requests.

OPPOSITION ARGUMENTS
Defendant argues that the requests don’t identify with particularity the documents sought and many of the requests contain overbroad prompts.

Defendant also argues that the requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate good cause for the requests because the motion fails to connect the dots between the facts of this case and the documents sought.

REPLY ARGUMENTS
Plaintiffs’ reply arguments add nothing of substance to its motion.

ANALYSIS

45-Day Requirement
Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand. (CCP §2031.310(c).)

Here, the instant motion was timely as per the extension granted by Defendant to file this motion.

Meet and Confer
“The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP §2031.310(b)(2).)

Plaintiffs’ counsel alleged it met and conferred. (Pfeffer Decl. ¶26, Ex. 5.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs did not meet and confer. Defendant stated that with respect to the meet and confer for RFPs 2-4, Plaintiffs’ correspondence did not match up with the demands served or TMS’s responses.

Here, the Court finds the meet and confer requirement has been met.

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The Section specifically provides that “[d]iscovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery “may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that a party demanding a document inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that:

“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

Under CCP § 2031.310 (b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”

ANALYSIS

[In the Opposition Separate Statement, Defendant’s footnote 1 says, “TMS notes that Plaintiffs previously served Requests for Production Nos. 1-37. For the sake of consistency, TMS adopts Plaintiffs’ erroneous numbering.” It is unclear what Defendant is trying to say here, as this motion relates to RFPs set two. Plaintiffs perhaps should have resumed numbering with 38-on.]

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs did not attempt to present specific facts as to why each request is relevant and was made for good cause. In fact, in Plaintiffs’ “Statement of Insufficiency” in their Separate Statement, Plaintiffs assert the same exact reasons for every single request. Plaintiffs even argue how certain objections are inappropriate when those objections weren’t asserted in Defendant’s response to the subject RFPs. Plaintiffs’ motion and Separate Statement merely regurgitated general information and generic case law relating to Song-Beverly or Lemon Law matters. No specific explanations were given as to why each individual request was propounded for good cause as relevant to the case.

There are additional deficiencies with this Motion.

The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement included the wrong RFPs for 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. The Court provided the proper RFPs as indicated in Defendant’s Separate Statement.

Further, Plaintiffs did not include “Electrical Defects” in their definitions in their separate statement. However, this definition appears to be in the actual requests propounded on Defendant. “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS” shall be understood to mean such defects which result in symptoms including: navigation screen lagging or blacked out; and/or other similar concerns identified in the repair history for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

Plaintiffs also failed to include “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS” in their definitions in their separate statement. However, this definition appears to be in the actual requests propounded on Defendant. “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS” shall be understood to mean such defects which result in symptoms including: multiple occurrences of window rattling from the front driver-side and front passenger-side windows and/or window switch; wind noise coming from the driver-side door; faulty/inoperative one-touch window switch; faulty fuel pump, requiring replacement; and/or other similar concerns identified in the repair history for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

As to the definition for Suspension Defects, Plaintiffs put this definition in the Separate Statement. “SUSPENSION DEFECTS” shall be understood to mean such defects which result in symptoms including: defects causing a cracking noise to be heard from the front passenger side of the vehicle when driving over bumps; leaking/noisy shock absorbers and struts, requiring replacement; and/or other similar concerns identified in the repair history for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

However, some of the RFPs at issue in this Motion appear on their face to have been propounded for good cause as reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1
All DOCUMENTS referencing, evidencing, and/or relating to YOUR policies, procedures, or guidelines for determining whether a vehicle is eligible for a vehicle repurchase under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
Subject to the below objections, TMS evaluates each case in good faith in accordance with the provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code section 1790, et seq.). A copy of this statute is equally available to Plaintiffs. In addition, TMS personnel have access to the glove box materials, which TMS is informed and believes are in Plaintiffs’ possession.

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is cumulative and duplicative of Plaintiffs’ first set of Requests for Production Nos. 21, 23 and 25 and is therefore harassing. In addition, TMS objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to “policies, procedures, or guidelines.” TMS further objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS referencing, evidencing, and/or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced and not reasonably limited in time or scope. In addition, this request violates the attorney-client, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. TMS further objects to this request as irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TMS objects to this request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 1
The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.) Here, Plaintiffs did not attempt to explain the relevance of the instant request. Defendant’s objection as to overbroad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 1, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:

All DOCUMENTS regarding any service, warranty, and other DOCUMENTS that relate to, or may relate to the alleged defect in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, that YOU issued to any dealer, regional or zone offices, fleet purchasers, or other entities.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:

Subject to the below objections, TMS will comply with this request in part and identifies Safety Recall JLB and Technical Service Bulletin L-SB-0013-16 that were previously produced but otherwise denies that same applies to any alleged defect in the subject vehicle.

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to “relate to, or may relate to,” and not reasonably limited in time or scope. TMS further objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS regarding” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is vague and ambiguous as to “the alleged defect,” assumes facts which have not been established and calls for a legal conclusion and speculation. In addition, this request violates the attorneyclient, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. TMS further objects to this request as irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TMS objects to this request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information. STATEMENT

TENATIVE RULING RFP 2
The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.) Here, Plaintiffs did not attempt to explain the relevance of the instant request. Defendant’s objection as to overbroad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 2, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

Produce all DOCUMENTS, including live telephone call records, audio records, tape recordings, voice messaging records, caller message recordings, digital voice recordings, interactive voice response unit (IVR/VRV) recordings, unified messaging files, and computer-based voice mail files between YOU and/or YOUR call center representative(s) and YOUR authorized dealers regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

Subject to the below objections, TMS will comply with this request in part by identifying the TAS Case and non-privileged Case Activity Report that were previously produced.

TMS further objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to “YOUR call center representative(s).” TMS further objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. In addition, this request violates the attorney-client, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. TMS further objects to this request as irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TMS objects to this request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 3
Defendant’s objections as to vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, lacking specificity, and relevancy are overruled.

Defendant’s response is evasive and confusing. Defendant says it will comply in part, but it is unclear what documents are being withheld. If Defendant is saying it will comply, it needs to follow 2031.220. “A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and 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.” (CCP §2031.220.)

If Defendant is asserting objections in part with respect to attorney-client and attorney work product and expert privilege, Defendant needs to comply with 2031.240.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 3, Set Two, is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further, verified, code-compliant response, and to produce the applicable documents within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

All DOCUMENTS regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE that are within YOUR Customer Relations Center.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

Subject to the below objections, TMS will comply with this request in part and identifies the Case Activity Report that was previously produced.

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive. This request is further objected to on the grounds that it is duplicative and/or cumulative of Request for Production No. 4, of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One and has been asked and answered. This request is further objected to on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to “Customer Relations Center.” TMS further objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS regarding” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. In addition, this request violates the attorney-client, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. TMS further objects to this request as irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TMS objects to this request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 4
Defendant’s objection as to “Customer Relations Center” being vague and ambiguous is sustained. Plaintiffs did not include Customer Relations Center as a defined term in the Separate Statement. “All documents” is hopelessly overbroad. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 4, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

YOUR recall policy and procedure.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to the phase “recall policy and procedure” and is overbroad in scope as to time. TMS further objects to the request as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. In addition, the request violates the attorney-client, work product and/or consulting expert privileges. TMS further objects to this request as irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TMS objects to this request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 5
Defendant’s objections as to overbroad, vague, and ambiguous are sustained. Plaintiffs did not attempt to explain the relevancy/good cause for the instant request. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 5, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

All DOCUMENTS that YOU use, since 2016, to evaluate consumers’ requests for repurchases pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

Subject to the below objections, TMS evaluates each case in good faith in accordance with the provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code section 1790, et seq.). A copy of this statute is equally available to Plaintiffs. In addition, TMS personnel have access to the glove box materials, which can be found at lexus.com.

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is cumulative and duplicative of Plaintiffs’ first set of Requests for Production Nos. 21, 23 and 25 and therefore harassing. In addition, TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad in scope as to time, burdensome and oppressive, including as to the phrase “since 2016.” TMS further objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. In addition, this request violates the attorney-client, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. TMS further objects to this request as irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TMS objects to this request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 6

The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.) Here, Plaintiffs did not attempt to explain the relevance of the instant request.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 6, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any field technical reports from YOUR agents, representatives, or employees to YOU which provide YOU with information relating to warranty parts replacement trends relating to the ELECTRICAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. In addition, TMS objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. The request is vague and ambiguous as to “agents” and “warranty parts replacement trends.” TMS further objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS. . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 7
As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, expert privileges, confidentiality, and privacy, Defendant did not properly assert objections in accordance with 2031.240.

Defendant’s other objections are overruled.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 7, Set Two, is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further, verified, code-compliant response, and to produce the applicable documents within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to YOUR decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins, and recalls concerning the ELECTRICAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 8

As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, expert privileges, confidentiality, and privacy, Defendant did not properly assert objections in accordance with 2031.240.

Defendant’s other objections are overruled.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 8, Set Two, is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further, verified, code-compliant response, and to produce the applicable documents within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.9:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any field technical reports from YOUR agents, representatives, or employees to YOU which provide YOU with information relating to common parts failures relating to the ELECTRICAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. In addition, the request is vague and ambiguous as to “agents” and “common parts failures.” TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 9
As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, expert privileges, confidentiality, and privacy, Defendant did not properly assert objections in accordance with 2031.240.

Defendant’s other objections are overruled.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 9, Set Two, is GRANTED. However, the Court limits sua sponte this RFP to California vehicles. Defendant is ordered to provide a further, verified, code-compliant response to this RFP as limited, and to produce the applicable documents within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) complaints regarding the ELECTRICAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 10
As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, expert privileges, confidentiality, and privacy, Defendant did not properly assert objections in accordance with 2031.240.

Defendant’s other objections are overruled.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 10, Set Two, is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further, verified, code-compliant response, and to produce the applicable documents within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (“TREAD”) complaints regarding the ELECTRICAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 11

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 11, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to ELECTRICAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle, including any databases in YOUR possession with information from dealers, service departments, part departments, or warranty departments, and all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim or reported failure. [This request shall be understood to include a search of YOUR Analytical Warranty System. This Request requires Defendant to produce these DOCUMENTS in their entirety and will all fields, columns, tables, rows, and/or datapoints, and all available information (other than any identifying customer contact information) including field names, codes, symptom codes, part numbers, claim numbers, and/or all other information that exists within these DOCUMENTS.]

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. This request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to “customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims,” “related to” and “Analytical Warranty System.” Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request may seek documents in the possession of third parties.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 12

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 12, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and emails within YOUR customer satisfaction surveys, or the equivalent, regarding the ELECTRICAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . regarding” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request may seek documents in the possession of third parties.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 13

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 13, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning any internal analysis or investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding ELECTRICAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle. [This request shall be interpreted to include any such investigation to determine the root cause of such ELECTRICAL DEFECTS, any such investigation to design a permanent repair procedure for such ELECTRICAL DEFECTS, any such investigation into the failure rate of parts associated with the ELECTRICAL DEFECTS, any cost analysis for implementing a proposed repair procedure for such ELECTRICAL DEFECTS, and any savings analysis for not implementing proposed repair procedures for such ELECTRICAL DEFECTS.]

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. This request is vague and ambiguous as to “internal analysis or investigation.” TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request may seek documents in the possession of third parties.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 14
The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.) Here, Plaintiffs did not attempt to explain the relevance of the instant request. Further, Plaintiff’s definition of ELECTRICAL DEFECTS is too vague in the context of this RFP 12.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 14, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:

TMS objects that this request is duplicative and/or cumulative of Request No. 12. TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. The request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to “customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims” and “related to.” Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request may seek documents in the possession of third parties.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 15
As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, expert privileges, confidentiality, and privacy, Defendant did not properly assert objections in accordance with 2031.240.

Defendant’s other objections are overruled. Also, Defendant made no attempt to explain or show how this request is duplicative of RFP 12.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 15, Set Two, is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further, verified, code-compliant response, and to produce the applicable documents within 20 days

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to Failure Mode and Effects Analysis reports (or comparable root cause analyses) concerning the ELECTRICAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. In addition, the request is vague and ambiguous as to “Failure Mode and Effects Analysis reports” and “comparable root cause analyses.” TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finally, the request seeks documents that may be in the possession of third parties, as TMS does not manufacture, design, developmentally test or assemble Lexus motor vehicles in the ordinary course of its business and was not the designer, manufacturer or assembler of the subject vehicle.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 16

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 16, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

All DOCUMENTS related to any electronic mail (including current, backed-up and archived programs, accounts, unified messaging, server-based e-mail, Web-based e-mail, dial-up e-mail, user names and addresses, domain names and addresses, e-mail messages, attachments, manual and automated mailing lists and mailing list addresses) which in any way relate to ELECTRICAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. This request is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to “which in any way relate to.” TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS related to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 17

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 17, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any field technical reports from YOUR agents, representatives, or employees to YOU which provide YOU with information relating to warranty parts replacement trends relating to the STRUCTURAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. The request is vague and ambiguous as to “agents” and “warranty parts replacement trends.” TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 18
As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, expert privileges, confidentiality, and privacy, Defendant did not properly assert objections in accordance with 2031.240.

Defendant’s other objections are overruled.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 18, Set Two, is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further, verified, code-compliant response, and produce the applicable documents within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to YOUR decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins, and recalls concerning the STRUCTURAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request may seek documents in the possession of third parties.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 19
As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, expert privileges, confidentiality, and privacy, Defendant did not properly assert objections in accordance with 2031.240.

Defendant’s other objections are overruled.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 19, Set Two, is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further, verified, code-compliant response, and produce the applicable documents within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any field technical reports from YOUR agents, representatives, or employees to YOU which provide YOU with information relating to common parts failures relating to the STRUCTURAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. In addition, the request is vague and ambiguous as to “agents” and “common parts failures.” TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 20
As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, expert privileges, confidentiality, and privacy, Defendant did not properly assert objections in accordance with 2031.240.

Defendant’s other objections are overruled.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 20, Set Two, is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further, verified, code-compliant response, and produce the applicable documents within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) complaints regarding the STRUCTURAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 21
As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, expert privileges, confidentiality, and privacy, Defendant did not properly assert objections in accordance with 2031.240.

Defendant’s other objections are overruled.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 21, Set Two, is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further, verified, code-compliant response, and produce the applicable documents within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (“TREAD”) complaints regarding the STRUCTURAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 22

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 22, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to STRUCTURAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle, including any databases in YOUR possession with information from dealers, service departments, part departments, or warranty departments, and all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim or reported failure. [This request shall be understood to include a search of YOUR Analytical Warranty System. This Request requires Defendant to produce these DOCUMENTS in their entirety and will all fields, columns, tables, rows, and/or datapoints, and all available information (other than any identifying customer contact information) including field names, codes, symptom codes, part numbers, claim numbers, and/or all other information that exists within these DOCUMENTS.]

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. This request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to “customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims,” “related to” and “Analytical Warranty System.” TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request seeks documents in the possession of third parties. The request seeks documents that may be in the possession of third parties.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 23

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 23, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and emails within YOUR customer satisfaction surveys, or the equivalent, regarding the STRUCTURAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . regarding” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request may seek documents in the possession of third parties.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 24

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 24, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning any internal analysis or investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding STRUCTURAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle. [This request shall be interpreted to include any such investigation to determine the root cause of such STRUCTURAL DEFECTS, any such investigation to design a permanent repair procedure for such STRUCTURAL DEFECTS, any such investigation into the failure rate of parts associated with the STRUCTURAL DEFECTS, any cost analysis for implementing a proposed repair procedure for such STRUCTURAL DEFECTS, and any savings analysis for not implementing proposed repair procedures for such STRUCTURAL DEFECTS.]

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. This request is vague and ambiguous as to “internal analysis or investigation.” TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request may seek documents in the possession of third parties.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 25
The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.) Here, Plaintiffs did not attempt to explain the relevance of the instant request.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 25, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:

TMS objects that this request is duplicative and/or cumulative of Request No. 23. TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. The request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to “customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims” and “related to.” TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request may seek documents in the possession of third parties.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 26
As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, expert privileges, confidentiality, and privacy, Defendant did not properly assert objections in accordance with 2031.240.

Defendant’s other objections are overruled. As to Defendant’s argument that this RFP is duplicative of 23, Defendant made no attempt to explain or show how this is duplicative.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 26, Set Two, is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further, verified, code-compliant response, and produce the applicable documents within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to Failure Mode and Effects Analysis reports (or comparable root cause analyses) concerning the STRUCTURAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. In addition, the request is vague and ambiguous as to “Failure Mode and Effects Analysis reports” and “comparable root cause analyses.” TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finally, the request seeks documents that may be in the possession of third parties, as TMS does not manufacture, design, developmentally test or assemble Lexus motor vehicles in the ordinary course of its business and was not the designer, manufacturer or assembler of the subject vehicle.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 27
Defendant’s objections as to “Failure Mode and Effects Analysis reports” and “comparable root cause analyses” being vague are sustained. These terms were not defined terms.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 27, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28:

All DOCUMENTS related to any electronic mail (including current, backed-up and archived programs, accounts, unified messaging, server-based e-mail, Web-based e-mail, dial-up e-mail, user names and addresses, domain names and addresses, e-mail messages, attachments, manual and automated mailing lists and mailing list addresses) which in any way relate to STRUCTURAL DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “STRUCTURAL DEFECTS” as nonsensical. This request is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to “which in any way relate to.” TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS related to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 28
The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.) Here, Plaintiffs did not attempt to explain the relevance of the instant request.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 28, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any field technical reports from YOUR agents, representatives, or employees to YOU which provide YOU with information relating to warranty parts replacement trends relating to the SUSPENSION DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS” as nonsensical. The request is vague and ambiguous as to “agents” and “warranty parts replacement trends.” TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 29
As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, expert privileges, confidentiality, and privacy, Defendant did not properly assert objections in accordance with 2031.240.

Defendant’s other objections are overruled.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 29, Set Two, is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further, verified, code-compliant response, and produce the applicable documents within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to YOUR decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins, and recalls concerning the SUSPENSION DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS” as nonsensical. TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request may seek documents in the possession of third parties.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 30
As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, expert privileges, confidentiality, and privacy, Defendant did not properly assert objections in accordance with 2031.240.

Defendant’s other objections are overruled.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 30, Set Two, is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further, verified, code-compliant response, and produce the applicable documents within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any field technical reports from YOUR agents, representatives, or employees to YOU which provide YOU with information relating to common parts failures relating to the SUSPENSION DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS” as nonsensical. In addition, the request is vague and ambiguous as to “agents” and “common parts failures.” TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 31
As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, expert privileges, confidentiality, and privacy, Defendant did not properly assert objections in accordance with 2031.240.

Defendant’s other objections are overruled.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 31, Set Two, is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further, verified, code-compliant response, and produce the applicable documents within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) complaints regarding the SUSPENSION DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS” as nonsensical. TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 32
As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, expert privileges, confidentiality, and privacy, Defendant did not properly assert objections in accordance with 2031.240.

Defendant’s other objections are overruled.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 32, Set Two, is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further, verified, code-compliant response, and produce the applicable documents within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (“TREAD”) complaints regarding the SUSPENSION DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS” as nonsensical. TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 33
The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.) Here, Plaintiffs did not attempt to explain the relevance of the instant request.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 33, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to SUSPENSION DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle, including any databases in YOUR possession with information from dealers, service departments, part departments, or warranty departments, and all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim or reported failure. [This request shall be understood to include a search of YOUR Analytical Warranty System. This Request requires Defendant to produce these DOCUMENTS in their entirety and will all fields, columns, tables, rows, and/or datapoints, and all available information (other than any identifying customer contact information) including field names, codes, symptom codes, part numbers, claim numbers, and/or all other information that exists within these DOCUMENTS.]

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS” as nonsensical. This request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to “customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims,” “related to” and “Analytical Warranty System.” TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request may seek documents in the possession of third parties.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 34
The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.) Here, Plaintiffs did not attempt to explain the relevance of the instant request.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 34, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and emails within YOUR customer satisfaction surveys, or the equivalent, regarding the SUSPENSION DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS” as nonsensical. TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . regarding” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request may seek documents in the possession of third parties.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 35
The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.) Here, Plaintiffs did not attempt to explain the relevance of the instant request.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 35, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning any internal analysis or investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding SUSPENSION DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle. [This request shall be interpreted to include any such investigation to determine the root cause of such SUSPENSION DEFECTS, any such investigation to design a permanent repair procedure for such SUSPENSION DEFECTS, any such investigation into the failure rate of parts associated with the SUSPENSION DEFECTS, any cost analysis for implementing a proposed repair procedure for such SUSPENSION DEFECTS, and any savings analysis for not implementing proposed repair procedures for such SUSPENSION DEFECTS.]

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS” as nonsensical. This request is vague and ambiguous as to “internal analysis or investigation.” TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 36
The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.) Here, Plaintiffs did not attempt to explain the relevance of the instant request.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 36, Set Two, is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:

TMS objects that this request is duplicative and/or cumulative of Request No. 34. TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS” as nonsensical. The request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to “customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims” and “related to.” TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request may seek documents in the possession of third parties.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 37
As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, expert privileges, confidentiality, and privacy, Defendant did not properly assert objections in accordance with 2031.240.

Defendant’s other objections are overruled. As to Defendant’s argument that this RFP is duplicative of 34, Defendant made no attempt to explain or show how this is duplicative. As “the request may seek documents in the possession of third parties,” that is not a code compliant response.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 37, Set Two, is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further, verified, code-compliant response, and produce the applicable documents within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38:

All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to Failure Mode and Effects Analysis reports (or comparable root cause analyses) concerning the SUSPENSION DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS” as nonsensical. In addition, the request is vague and ambiguous as to “Failure Mode and Effects Analysis reports” and “comparable root cause analyses.” TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finally, the request seeks documents that may be in the possession of third parties, as TMS does not manufacture, design, developmentally test or assemble Lexus motor vehicles in the ordinary course of its business and was not the designer, manufacturer or assembler of the subject vehicle.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 38
The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.) Here, Plaintiffs did not attempt to explain the relevance of the instant request.

Defendant’s objections are sustained as to “Failure Mode and Effects Analysis reports” and “comparable root cause analyses” being vague and ambiguous because those terms do not appear to be defined terms.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 38 is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39:

All DOCUMENTS related to any electronic mail (including current, backed-up and archived programs, accounts, unified messaging, server-based e-mail, Web-based e-mail, dial-up e-mail, user names and addresses, domain names and addresses, e-mail messages, attachments, manual and automated mailing lists and mailing list addresses) which in any way relate to SUSPENSION DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39:

TMS objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, including as to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS,” and assumes facts not established. TMS further objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “SUSPENSION DEFECTS” as nonsensical. This request is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to “which in any way relate to.” TMS objects to the request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS . . . concerning, referring, or relating to” as lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. Further, the request is disproportionately burdensome and not reasonably limited in scope to the vehicle at issue. The request violates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. Moreover, the request seeks the production of confidential and proprietary information. The request constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violates third party privacy rights, seeks documents irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 39
The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.) Here, Plaintiffs did not attempt to explain the relevance of the instant request. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 38 is DENIED.

SANCTIONS
Except as provided in subdivision (j), 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 further response to 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. (CCP §2031.310(h).)

Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendant asked for sanctions. No sanctions are awarded. A Sanctions award would be unjust on this Motion.

Motion to Strike
It is unclear what purpose Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Strike” serves and it is unclear the legal basis for filing a “Motion to Strike” in a Reply to a Motion to Compel Further Responses. Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Strike” is DENIED.