Judge David A. Rosen, Case 22GDCV00400 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 22GDCV00400, Date: 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCV00400 Hearing Date: April 7, 2023 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 04/07/2023 – 8:30am
Case No: 22GDCV00400
Trial Date: 09/26/2023
Case Name: VIPIN ALEX, indiv; v. FCA USA LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-10

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Moving Party: Plaintiff, Vipin Alex
Responding Party: Defendant, FCA US LLC

Oppo and Reply submitted and considered.

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok
Proper Address: Ok

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff moves for an order to strike Defendant’s objections and compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, number 3, 5, 9, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37.

Plaintiff brings this motion pursuant to CCP §2031.310 and 2031.320 on the grounds that Defendant failed to provide adequate responses.

PROCEDURAL

45 Days
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 parties appear to have agreed to a date of 1/17/2023 to file and serve this motion. The instant motion was filed and served by email on 1/17/2023 and is thus timely.

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

Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred. (See Decl. Sogoyan ¶16, Ex. E.) Defendant’s argument that there was no sufficient meet and confer is unavailing.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges three causes of action against Defendant for: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act- Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty, (3) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2. Plaintiff alleges that during the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle (2021 Chrysler Pacifica with VIN No.: 2C4RC1S72MR526849) contained or developed defects, including those related to the vehicle’s electrical, engine, and structural systems. Plaintiff alleges that according to the repair and warranty records, Plaintiff presented the Subject Vehicle to Defendant’s authorized repair facilities on numerous occasions for the various defects, which resulted in major repairs to the vehicle, including the replacement of the entire infotainment screen and radio, issues involving a no start engine, and a myriad of software updates to address these and other repeated electrical issues.

Plaintiff argues that it seeks documents relating to: (1) Plaintiff’s own vehicle (Request Nos. 4-15); (2) Defendant’s warranty and repurchase policies, procedures, and practices (Request Nos. 16-32); and (3) Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model (Request Nos. 33-37).

Defendant argues in Opposition that: FCA already served responses, verification, and production of documents; that it will serve additional production upon Plaintiff’s execution of a stipulation and protective order that was sent to Plaintiff in December of 2022; that Plaintiff seeks class action type discovery, that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery related to other consumers’ vehicles, and that Defendant’s objections are valid.

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.”

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.)

ANALYSIS

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff wants further responses to 17 different requests for production. However, in Plaintiff’s separate statement, Plaintiff copy-pasted the same exact reason for compelling further responses for every single request despite the fact that Defendant responded differently to each of the 17 requests. In fact, in Plaintiff’s statement of insufficiency in the separate statement, Plaintiff brings up problems it has with a response that don’t apply to the response. For example, for RPD # 3, Plaintiff argues about a “vague and ambiguous” response, but nowhere in the response did Defendant object on grounds of “vague and ambiguous.” In another example, RPD 3, Plaintiff takes issues with an “unduly burdensome” objection, but Defendant did not object on those grounds in RPD 3. Further, in every single one of Plaintiff’s reasons to compel further for every RPD, Plaintiff talks about electronically stored information, and the Court did not see a single objection in Defendant’s responses about electronically stored information.

Therefore, it is difficult to determine what problems Plaintiff has with Defendant’s responses and why a further response should be compelled when not a single reason in Plaintiff’s “Statement of Insufficiency” in the separate statement is tailored to each request.

Plaintiff has the burden here, as “the motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (CCP §2031.310(b)(1).)

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence, support, refer, or relate to each of the affirmative defenses as set forth in YOUR Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

FCA US will comply in full with this request and produce all responsive documents within its possession, custody or control, namely, a copy of the warranty claim records for the 2021 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid Limited, VIN 2C4RC1S72MR526849 (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Vehicle”), a copy of vehicle repair records obtained from any authorized repair facilities concerning service to the Subject Vehicle, a copy of the Repair Order Detailed Report for the Subject Vehicle and a copy of the Customer Assistance Inquiry Records (CAIRs) containing communications with Plaintiff relating to the Subject Vehicle. FCA US did not sell, lease or service the Subject Vehicle. FCA US refers Plaintiff to AutoNation Chrysler Dodge Jeep, 23820 Creekside Road, Valencia, California 91355 and Simi Valley Chrysler Dodge Jeep, 2350 1st Street, Simi Valley, California 93065, the independently owned and operated authorized repair facilities who FCA US believes to have performed service to the Subject Vehicle, and who may be in possession of additional responsive documents.

FCA US otherwise objects to this request because it is overly broad, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the case. FCA US further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney work product doctrine or attorney-client privilege. FCA US also objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the term “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 3

Defendant’s response is not code compliant.

As to the first sentence of the response, Defendant states it will comply in full; however, Defendant then goes on to name specific documents, by which it appears that Defendant is not identifying all documents and unilaterally limiting the scope of production. “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 [emph. added.].)

Defendant’s second and third sentences of the response states, “FCA US did not sell, lease or service the Subject Vehicle. FCA US refers Plaintiff to AutoNation Chrysler Dodge Jeep, 23820 Creekside Road, Valencia, California 91355 and Simi Valley Chrysler Dodge Jeep, 2350 1st Street, Simi Valley, California 93065, the independently owned and operated authorized repair facilities who FCA US believes to have performed service to the Subject Vehicle, and who may be in possession of additional responsive documents.”

As to the second and third sentences, the Court is uncertain as to what Defendant is trying to say. If Defendant is trying to respond with a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply, then Defendant needs to provide a code compliant response. “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (CCP §2031.230.)

As to Defendant’s objections to overbreadth are non-specific, these objections are overruled.

As to objections on attorney work product and attorney-client privilege, Defendant did not provide a code compliant response. “If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following: (1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made. (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.” (CCP §2031.240(b)(1)-(2).) Further, “If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (CCP §2031.240(c)(1).)

The last sentence in Defendant’s response states, “FCA US also objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the term “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.” But this RPD refers to the affirmative responses in YOUR answer. There is presumably only ONE answer, the defendant’s answer.

Defendant is to provide further code compliant responses with verifications to RPD 3 as described herein.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any inspection of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

RESPONSE NO. 5:

FCA US is not aware of any inspections performed on the Subject Vehicle, other than those that may have been performed when the vehicle was serviced by authorized repair facilities. Therefore, FCA US will produce the Repair Order Detail Report for the Subject Vehicle and the repair orders obtained from the independently owned and operated repair facilities regarding the Subject Vehicle.

FCA US did not sell, lease or service the Subject Vehicle. FCA US refers Plaintiff to AutoNation Chrysler Dodge Jeep, 23820 Creekside Road, Valencia, California 91355 and Simi Valley Chrysler Dodge Jeep, 2350 1st Street, Simi Valley, California 93065, the independently owned and operated authorized repair facilities who FCA US believes to have performed service to the Subject Vehicle, and who may be in possession of additional responsive documents.

FCA US otherwise objects to this request because it is overly broad, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the case. FCA US also objects to this request because the phrase “Any inspection” is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 5

Defendant’s response is not code compliant.

Under §2031.210, the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:

(1)¿A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision I of Section 2031.030 and any related activities.

(2)¿A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item.

(3)¿An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.

(CCP §2031.210(a).)

If Defendant is stating it is complying in full, Defendant needs to follow CCP §2031.220. If Defendant is stating it lacks the ability to comply, Defendant needs to follow 2031.230. If Defendant is saying that only part of an item or category of item in the demand is objectionable, Defendant needs to comply with 2031.240.

Defendant’s objections to this response are overruled.

Defendant is to provide further code compliant responses with verifications to RPD 5 as described herein.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to Plaintiff’s request for refund of the price Plaintiff paid for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

RESPONSE NO. 9:

FCA US will comply in full with this request and produce all responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control, namely, a copy of any Customer Assistance Inquiry Records (CAIRs) containing communications with Plaintiff pertaining to the Subject Vehicle.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 9
If Defendant is stating it is complying in full, Defendant needs to follow CCP §2031.220. By Defendant saying “namely,” it appears as if Defendant may be unilaterally limiting the scope of production on how Defendant sees fit.

Defendant’s objections are overruled.

Defendant is to provide further code compliant responses with verifications to RPD 9 as described herein.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

Any DOCUMENT related in any way to determining whether repairs should be covered by YOUR warranty.

RESPONSE NO. 16:

FCA US will comply with this request in part and produce a copy of the warranty booklet containing the written limited warranties that accompanied the Subject Vehicle when it was originally distributed.

FCA US otherwise objects to this request because it is overly broad, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the case. FCA US also objects to this request because the phrase “Any DOCUMENT related in any way to...” is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case. FCA US also objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the term “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 16

In Defendant’s separate statement as to why no further response is required, Defendant states, “FCA US has already complied in full to this request and produced all responsive documents within its possession, custody, and control related to this request; namely, a copy of the warranty booklet containing the written limited warranties that accompanied the Subject Vehicle, when it was originally distributed. FCA US also properly objected and maintains its objections. Based on FCA US’ full response to this request, a further response should not be compelled.”

Therefore, it appears as if Defendant is now stating it has complied in full, and not that it will comply in part as it stated in the original response. If Defendant is now arguing it complied in full, Defendant needs to provide a verified, code compliant response stating so.

As to Defendant’s objections on overly broad and not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the case, those objections are overruled.

As to the objections for vague and ambiguous to “Any DOCUMENT related in any way to...” and

as to the objection on the definition of “YOUR,” Defendant’s objections are SUSTAINED, but the Court’s ruling remains as aforesaid.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

All of YOUR warranty claims policy and procedure manual(s) from 2010 to the present.

RESPONSE NO. 17:

FCA US will comply in full with this request and produce, subject to a protective order, all relevant documents within its possession, custody, or control, namely, a copy of the Warranty Administration Manual.

FCA US otherwise objects to this request because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case. FCA US also objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the term “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 17

In Defendant’s Opposition Separate Statement as to why no further response is required, Defendant states, “FCA US has already complied in full to this request and produced all responsive documents within its possession, custody, and control related to this request; namely, a copy of the Warranty Administration Manual, subject to protective order. FCA US also properly objected and maintains its objections. Based on FCA US’ full response to this request, a further response should not be compelled.”

As to the first sentence in Defendant’s response, if Defendant is stating it is complying in full, Defendant needs to comply with 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.)

Here, Defendant appears as if it may be limiting and qualifying its response with “all relevant documents...” and “….namely…”

All objections in the second sentence of Defendant’s response are overruled.

Defendant’s objection as to “YOUR” is sustained, but Defendant is to respond in a code compliant manner stating that it has responded in full to this request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to YOUR rules, policies, or procedures since 2010 concerning the issuance of refunds to buyers or providing replacement vehicles to buyers in the State of California under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

RESPONSE NO. 18:

[The Court notes that what Plaintiff alleged Defendant’s response to be to RPD 18 in Plaintiff’s Separate Statement was not in fact what Defendant’s response was. Plaintiff includes Defendant’s response in the Plaintiff’s separate statement and in the Declaration of Sogoyan via what Plaintiff attached as Defendant’s responses. The response in the declaration is different than the response in the Plaintiff’s separate statement. The Court will include below Defendant’s response as indicated in Defendant’s Opposition Separate Statement which matches up with the responses in the Sogoyan Declaration. The Court will not use Plaintiff’s version of Defendant’s responses in Plaintiff’s separate statement.]

FCA US will comply in full with this request and produce, subject to a protective order, all relevant documents within its possession, custody, or control, namely, a copy of the portion of the Dealer Policy Manual that relates to state lemon laws, a copy of the Warranty Administration Manual, and a copy of the policies and procedures of its Customer Assistance Center regarding handling of customer complaints and requests for refund or replacement of their vehicle.

FCA US otherwise objects to this request because it is overly broad, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the case. FCA US also objects to this request because the phrase “All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to….” is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case. FCA US also objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the term “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 18

In Defendant’s Opposition Separate Statement, Defendant argues a further response is not required because, “FCA US has already complied in full to this request and produced all responsive documents within its possession, custody, and control related to this request; namely, a copy of the portion of the Dealer Policy Manual that relates to state lemon laws, a copy of the Warranty Administration Manual, and a copy of the policies and procedures of its Customer Assistance Center regarding handling of customer complaints and requests for refund or replacement of their vehicle, all subject to protective order. FCA US also properly objected and maintains its objections. Based on FCA US’ full response to this request, a further response should not be compelled.”

As to the first sentence in Defendant’s response and the Oppo Sep. Stmt., if Defendant is stating it is complying in full, Defendant needs to comply with 2031.220. Defendant appears as if it may be unilaterally limiting the scope to the response that it is complying in full by using the language “relevant documents,” and “namely.”

As to the objections in the second sentence of Defendant’s response as to the Request being overly broad and not relevant/not reasonably calculated, those objections are overruled.

As to the objections in the third sentence of Defendant’s response that “FCA US also objects to this request because the phrase “All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to….” is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case,” the Court overrules this objection.

Defendant’s objection as to the definition of “YOUR” is sustained.

Defendant is to provide a code-compliant response to the effect of its claim that it has responded in full to this Request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:

All DOCUMENTS evidencing and/or describing YOUR training materials related to YOUR policy regarding how to calculate a repurchase.

RESPONSE NO. 22:

FCA US objects to this request because it is overly broad, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the case. FCA US also objects to this request because the phrase “All DOCUMENTS evidencing and/or describing ….” is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case. FCA US further objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the term “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 22

In Defendant’s Opposition Separate Statement as to why no further response is required, Defendant argues:

FCA US has objected and maintains that the above noted objections are reasonable and appropriate. Plaintiff must identify with reasonable particularity the documents she seeks through Requests for Production. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.030(c)(1).) Discovery is overbroad and objectionable if it so framed as to require the disclosure of irrelevant as well as relevant matter. (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19; see also, Flora Crane Service, Inc. v. Superior Court (1967) 234 Cal. App. 2d 767, 785-786 [an inspection may not be had without adequate identification of the documents sought to be inspected].) It is incumbent upon the petitioner to specify the exact matters or things desired to be produced. (Id.) An unlimited description of documents destroys the exactitude required by the discovery statutes such that the responding party is not reasonably apprised of what must be produced. (Id.; see also Lemelle v. Superior Court (1978) 143 Cal. Rptr. 450 [when requisite specificity is lacking or there is no showing of good cause, there is no abuse of discretion in denying discovery].)

One of the glaring deficiencies in this request is that Plaintiff seeks “All DOCUMENTS” evidencing, referring, or describing open ended subject matters without any reasonable specificity whatsoever related to the Subject Vehicle. As such, Plaintiff’s request is overbroad and difficult to interpret. Plaintiff has not specified particular documents and categories of documents by name, or even by discrete category. Most importantly, Plaintiff’s intentionally vague request makes the search for and identification of document impossible because there is simply no possible way to determine what documents might even be responsive to these requests or the far-reaching bounds of the requests.

As such, a further response should not be compelled.

(Oppo. Sep. Stmt. p.7.)

Tentative Ruling on RFP 22:

Defendant is to provide a code-compliant response to this Request with the understanding that “YOU” or “YOURS” is defined as the Defendant responding.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:

All DOCUMENTS referencing, evidencing, and/or relating to YOUR training material related to YOUR policy to encourage customers to give YOU another opportunity to repair their vehicles.

RESPONSE NO. 24:

FCA US objects to this request because it is overly broad, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the case. FCA US also objects to this request because the phrase “All DOCUMENTS referencing, evidencing, and/or relating ….” is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case. FCA US also objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 24

In Defendant’s Opposition Separate Statement as to why no further response is required, Defendant made the same exact argument that can be seen in the Court’s Tentative Ruling to RPD 22.

Defendant’s objections to this Request are Sustained. Moving party failed to meet its burden of showing good cause here.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence any predictive model used to determine if one of Defendant’s vehicles is a candidate for escalation.

RESPONSE NO. 29:

FCA US objects to this request because it is overly broad, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the case. FCA US also objects to this request because the phrase “All DOCUMENTS which evidence any predictive model” is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 29

In Defendant’s Opposition Separate Statement as to why no further response is required, Defendant made the same exact argument that can be seen in the Court’s Tentative Ruling to RPD 22.

Defendant is to provide a code-compliant response to this Request; its objections to this Request are overruled.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:

All DOCUMENTS any CONSULTANT provided YOU from 2010 to present that are related in any way to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

RESPONSE NO. 30:

FCA US objects to this request because it is overly broad, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the case. FCA US also objects to this request because the phrase “All DOCUMENTS” is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case. FCA US also objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the term “YOU” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 30

In Defendant’s Opposition Separate Statement as to why no further response is required, Defendant made the same exact argument that can be seen in the Court’s Tentative Ruling to RPD 22.

As moving party didn’t meet its burden of showing good cause for this broad and wide Request, no further response is compelled.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:

All DOCUMENTS evidencing any policies, procedures, or guidelines provided by YOU to any agency regarding what constitutes a substantial nonconformity under the Song-Beverly Act from 2010 to present.

RESPONSE NO. 31:

FCA US objects to this request because it is overly broad, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the case. FCA US also objects to this request because the phrase “All DOCUMENTS evidencing any policies, procedures, or guidelines” is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case. FCA US also objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the term “YOU” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 31

In Defendant’s Opposition Separate Statement as to why no further response is required, Defendant made the same exact argument that can be seen in the Court’s Tentative Ruling to RPD 22.

The Motion is denied as to this Request. The time frame is overbroad, the Request is not limited to the Subject vehicle, and isn’t tailored to the same substantial nonconformity of the subject vehicle.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:

All DOCUMENTS evidencing or describing statistics for the number of repurchases and replacements Defendant has made in California in response to consumers’ personal requests (i.e. a consumer request without an attorney) from 2010 to present.

RESPONSE NO. 32:

FCA US objects to this request because it is overly broad, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the case. FCA US also objects to this request because the phrase “All DOCUMENTS evidencing” is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 32

In Defendant’s Opposition Separate Statement as to why no further response is required, Defendant made the same exact argument that can be seen in the Court’s Tentative Ruling to RPD 22.

See, tentative ruling as to RPD 31, supra.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe the numbers of owners 2021 Chrysler Pacifica vehicles who have complained of any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.

RESPONSE NO. 33:

FCA US objects to this request because it is overly broad, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the case. FCA US further objects as the terms “All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe” and “conditions, defects, or nonconformities” are overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of thiscase and the request is unreasonably cumulative and duplicative. FCA US also objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 33

In Defendant’s Opposition Separate Statement as to why no further response is required, Defendant made the same exact argument that can be seen in the Court’s Tentative Ruling to RPD 22.

Defendant’s objections are overruled, and Defendant is ordered to provide verified, further code compliant responses to RPD 33, except that “YOU” or “YOUR” are defined as this responding Defendant.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to all Technical Service Bulletins (“TSBs”) which have been issued for 2021 Chrysler Pacifica vehicles, including, but not limited to, complete copies of all such Technical Service Bulletins that involve any part, component, subcomponent, system, assembly, or sub-assembly for which the SUBJECT VEHICLE was subject to one or more repair attempts as reflected in YOUR Warranty Claim Records, or in the repair orders produced during discovery in this case.

RESPONSE NO. 34:

FCA US will comply in part and will produce a copy of the Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs), recalls, and Customer Satisfaction Notifications that may be applicable to the Subject Vehicle. TSBs, recalls, and Customer Satisfaction Notifications are vehicle-specific and identify the vehicles to which they apply, sometimes by VIN or build date. FCA US will also search its records and produce a copy of any Rapid Response Transmittal reasonably at issue in this case.

This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with C.C.P. Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” (Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal. App. 2d 767, 786-787.) To the extent that the request seeks documents other than those described in this response, FCA US is unable to comply in full because it cannot identify additional documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further object as the term “All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to technical service bulletins which may relate to any claim of defect in this case. FCA US also objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the term “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 34

In Defendant’s Opposition Separate Statement, Defendant argues that no further response is required because, “FCA US has already complied in full to this request and produced all responsive documents within its possession, custody, and control related to this request; namely, a copy of the Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs), recalls, and Customer Satisfaction Notifications that may be applicable to the Subject Vehicle as well as any Rapid Response Transmittal reasonably at issue. FCA US also properly objected and maintains its objections. Based on FCA US’ full response to this request, a further response should not be compelled.”

It appears as if Defendant is now arguing it has complied in full, and not that it will comply in part like it stated in the original response. If Defendant is now arguing it complied in full, Defendant needs to provide a verified, code compliant response stating so.

As to arguing that Defendant properly objected and maintains its initial objections, those objections are Overruled, except that the definitions of “YOU” or “YOUR” are narrowed as previously explained by this Court herein.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to all Recalls which have been issued for 2021 Chrysler Pacifica vehicles that involve any part, component, sub-component, system, assembly, or sub-assembly for which the SUBJECT VEHICLE was subject to one or more repair attempts as reflected in YOUR Warranty Claim Records or in the repair orders produced during discovery in this case.

RESPONSE NO. 35:

FCA US otherwise objects to this request as improper under Cal. Code of Civil Procedure sec. 2031.030(c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with C.C.P. Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” (Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal. App. 2d 767, 786-787.) To the extent that the request seeks documents other than those described in this response, FCA US is unable to comply in full because it cannot identify additional documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further object as the term “All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited to technical service bulletins which may relate to any claim of defect in this case. FCA US also objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the term “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 35

The Court rules here as it did with respect to RFP 34, supra.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36:

All DOCUMENTS which describe or discuss above-average repair rates to 2021 Chrysler Pacifica vehicles.

RESPONSE NO. 36:

FCA US objects to this request because it is overly broad, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the case. FCA US further objects as the term “All DOCUMENTS which describe or discuss” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case. FCA US further objects to this request because the phrase “above-average repair rates” is vague, ambiguous, and lacks foundation.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 36
In Defendant’s Opposition Separate Statement as to why no further response is required, Defendant made the same exact argument that can be seen in the Court’s Tentative Ruling to RPD 22. While Defendant’s arguments are not persuasive here, Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden to show good cause for this over-broad and ambiguous Request

The Motion is Denied as to this Request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe sales brochures, literature or any other promotional materials provided or distributed by YOU regarding vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

RESPONSE NO. 37:

FCA US objects to this request because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of this case. FCA US specifically objects to the request for “All DOCUMENTS” as vague, ambiguous and lacking specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. FCA US also objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the term “YOU” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 37

In Defendant’s Opposition Separate Statement as to why no further response is required, Defendant made the same exact argument that can be seen in the Court’s Tentative Ruling to RPD 22. Defendant’s objections to this Request are sustained. The Motion is Denied as to this Request.

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 party requested sanctions. No sanctions are awarded, as it would be unjust to impose sanctions under all the circumstances described above.