Judge David A. Rosen, Case Number: 22GDCV00987, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 22GDCV00987, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCV00987 Hearing Date: August 18, 2023 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 08/18/2023 – 10:00am
Case No: 22GDCV00987
Trial Date: 06/24/2024
Case Name: MARLOW C. LAFOUNTAINE, an individual, and EVOQUE MODERN, LLC., a California Limited Liability Company v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-10 inclusve

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiffs, Marlow C. Lafountaine and Evoque Modern, LLC., move for an order to strike Defendant, FCA US LLC’s (FCA), objections and compel further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, number 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16-37.

Plaintiffs brings this Motion pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2031.310, and 2031.320, on the grounds that Defendant waived its objections and 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, Marlow C. Lafountaine and Evoque Modern LLC.
Responding Party: Defendants, FCA US LLC

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): Ok

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

Opposition Papers: Opposition; Separate Statement; Hanson Declaration

Reply Papers: No Reply Submitted.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on 12/09/2022 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 2021 Jeep Gladiator that Plaintiffs purchased on September 4, 2021. 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, transmission, 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 One, seek documents relating to: (1) Plaintiffs’ own vehicle (Request Nos. 1-15); (2) Defendant’s warranty and repurchase policies, procedures, and practices (Request Nos. 16-31); and (3) Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model. (Request Nos. 32-37).

Plaintiffs also argue that Defendant failed to produce a vast majority of responsive documents requested.

OPPOSITION ARGUMENTS
Defendant argues it already responded and produced all responsive documents, with the exception of confidential documents that FCA will produce subject to a protective order.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failed to properly meet and confer.

Defendant also argues the demands are unlimited in scope by time or geography, invade the privacy of FCA US’s other customers, and far exceed the bounds of relevance and proportionality that govern the scope of discovery.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ discovery falls into the following three categories: First, documents related to the Subject Vehicle (which FCA US has produced), second FCA US customer service policies and procedures and related manuals (which FCA US has produced) and third, a class action scope of documents seeking broad prelitigation and repurchasing practices.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs did not set forth specific facts showing good cause for the request and that Plaintiff’s motion is devoid providing a fact-specific justification for the requests.

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, Plaintiffs state that Defendant responded with boilerplate objections that were not code compliant on or about February 22, 2023. (Sogoyan Decl. ¶16.) Since the instant motion was filed and served on 3/8/2023, Plaintiff’s motion 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).)

Plaintiffs’ counsel alleged it met and conferred. (Sogoyan Decl. ¶¶20-21, Ex. 6.) Defendant argument that Plaintiffs did not meet and confer is unpersuasive.

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 & TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs have made no attempt to offer specific facts as to why each request is justified and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. In fact, in Plaintiffs’ “Statement of Insufficiency” in their Separate Statement, Plaintiffs asserts exactly the same reasons for every single request. Plaintiffs even argue how certain objections are inappropriate when those objections weren’t even asserted in the response to the RFP. Plaintiffs’ motion and Separate Statement merely regurgitate general information and generic case law relating to Song-Beverly or Lemon Law matters. No explanations were given as to why each individual request is reasonably relevant to the case at bar.

However, some of the RFPs are reasonable on their face, and Defendant’s response is insufficient.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5
All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any inspection of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 Plaintiffs to Los Angeles Chrysler Dodge Jeep RAM, 2025 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, California 90007 and Yucca Valley Chrysler Dodge Jeep, 57909 29 Palms Highway, Yucca Valley, California 92284, 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.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 5
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 5 is GRANTED. Defendant’s objections are overruled. If the response is stating that it will comply, Defendant needs to comply with 2031.220. If the response is stating that it lacks the ability to comply, Defendant needs to comply with 2031.230. Defendant is ordered to provided further, verified, code-compliant responses, and produce the applicable documents, within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

All photographs and videotapes of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

FCA US has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in an attempt to comply with this request, however FCA US is unable to comply because the responsive documents are not within its possession, custody or control.

FCA US refers Plaintiffs to Los Angeles Chrysler Dodge Jeep RAM, 2025 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, California 90007 and Yucca Valley Chrysler Dodge Jeep, 57909 29 Palms Highway, Yucca Valley, California 92284, 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 the extent that the request seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney work product doctrine.

TENATIVE RULING RFP 6
At first glance, the first two sentences of Defendant’s response appears to be code compliant with 2031.230 with respect to its inability to comply. However, Defendant’s objection with respect to attorney work product is not asserted properly. If Defendant is objecting in part or in full, Defendant needs to comply with 2031.240. Defendant’s objections as to overly broad, not relevant, and reasonably calculated are overruled. Defendant’s improper assertion of objections after its response about inability to comply makes the response evasive and uncertain.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 6 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provided further, verified, code-compliant responses within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

All DOCUMENTS that reflect the warranty repair history of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

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 claims records for the Subject Vehicle, and a copy of the Repair Order Detailed Report concerning service to the Subject Vehicle.

FCA US did not service the Subject Vehicle. FCA US refers Plaintiffs to Los Angeles Chrysler Dodge Jeep RAM, 2025 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, California 90007 and Yucca Valley Chrysler Dodge Jeep, 57909 29 Palms Highway, Yucca Valley, California 92284, 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.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 10
Defendant’s objections are overruled. Defendant’s response is evasive and confusing. Defendant first states it will comply in full, but then Defendant apparently limits its response with the language about “namely…” It is unclear if Defendant is stating it will comply in full. If Defendant is responding that it will comply win full, Defendant needs to comply with 2031.220. Further, Defendant’s second paragraph in the response seems to contradict the first paragraph of the response. This response is evasive.

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

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any CONTACT between YOU and Plaintiff.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

FCA US is unable to comply with this request as it has performed a diligent search for a copy of any Customer Assistance Inquiry Records (“CAIRs”) containing communications with Plaintiffs relating to the Subject Vehicle and located none. Upon information and belief, no such documents currently exist, or ever existed.

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 Plaintiffs’ definition of the term “YOU” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 11
Defendant’s objections are overruled. Further, Defendant’s response as to inability to comply is evasive because it limits what it searched for. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 11 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provided further, verified, code-compliant responses, and to produce the applicable documents within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe any CONTACT between YOU and any other PERSON, other than YOUR attorney, regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:

FCA US is unable to comply with this request as it has performed a diligent search for a copy of any Customer Assistance Inquiry Records (“CAIRs”) containing communications with Plaintiffs relating to the Subject Vehicle, and located none. Upon information and belief, no such documents currently exist, or ever existed.

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 Plaintiffs’ 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 RFP 13
Defendant’s objections are Sustained. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 13 is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to written or recorded statements from any PERSON concerning the SUBJECT VEHICLE or Plaintiffs’ complaints concerning the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 14
Defendant’s objections are overruled. Further, Defendant’s response as to inability to comply is evasive because it limits what it searched for. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 14 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provided further, verified, code-compliant responses, and to produce the applicable documents within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

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

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 Plaintiffs’ definition of the term “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 16
Defendant’s objections are overruled, except as to overbreadth. Defendant’s response is in any event evasive. If Defendant is saying it will comply in part, Defendant needs to fully 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, it’s unclear what documents Defendant is withholding if Defendant is saying it will comply in part. If Defendant is withholding documents based on objections, Defendant needs to comply with 2031.240.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 16 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provided further, verified, code-compliant responses, and to produce the applicable documents within 20 days.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

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

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 Plaintiffs’ definition of the term “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 17
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 overly broad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 17 is DENIED.

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 TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:

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, including prior versions to the extent they exist dating from 2018 to the present, 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 Plaintiffs’ definition of the term “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 18
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 overly broad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 18 is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to procedures used by YOU for the handling of complaints by consumers regarding vehicles YOU manufactured or distributed.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:

FCA US will comply in full with this request and produce, subject to a protective order, all responsive 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, including prior versions to the extent they exist dating from 2018 to the present, 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 Plaintiffs’ definition of the term “YOU” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 19
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 overly broad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 19 is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:

All DOCUMENTS issued by YOU or on YOUR behalf which evidence or describe the policies, procedures, and/or instructions which YOUR employees and authorized agents should follow after a decision has been made by YOU to authorize either a refund of the purchase price, or a replacement vehicle, to YOUR customer.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:

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 Plaintiffs’ 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 RFP 20
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 overly broad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 20 is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:

All DOCUMENTS issued by YOU or on YOUR behalf which evidence or describe policies, procedures, and/or instructions since 2010 that YOUR employees and agents should follow when evaluating a customer request for their money back or a replacement of a motor vehicle manufactured or distributed by YOU.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:

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 or describe….” 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 Plaintiffs’ 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 RFP 21
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 overly broad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 21 is DENIED.

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 TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 Plaintiffs’ definition of the term “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 22
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 overly broad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 22 is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:

All DOCUMENTS referencing, evidencing, and/or relating to YOUR policies, procedures, or guidelines for determining whether a vehicle is eligible for a vehicle repurchase.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:

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 referencing, evidencing, and/or relating 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 Plaintiffs’ definition of the term “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 23
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 overly broad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 23 is DENIED.

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 TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 Plaintiffs’ 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 RFP 24
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 overly broad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 24 is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:

All DOCUMENTS referencing, evidencing, and/or relating to YOUR policy defining what constitutes a repair to determine eligibility for repurchase or replacement in California.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:

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 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 Plaintiffs’ definition of the term “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

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. Defendant’s objection as to overly broad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 25 is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:

All DOCUMENTS issued by YOU or on YOUR behalf which evidence or describe policies, procedures and/or instructions since 2010 which YOUR authorized repair facilities should follow regarding customer requests for a refund of the price paid for a vehicle or a replacement vehicle.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:

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 or describe ….” 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 Plaintiffs’ 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 RFP 26
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 overly broad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 26 is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe YOUR Lemon Law Escalation Process.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:

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 or describe ….” 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 Plaintiffs’ definition of the term “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 27
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 overly broad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 27 is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe YOUR call center escalation process.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28:

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 or describe” 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 Plaintiffs’ definition of the term “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

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. Defendant’s objection as to overly broad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 28 is DENIED.

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 TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 RFP 29
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 overly broad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 29 is DENIED.

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 TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 Plaintiffs’ definition of the term “YOU” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 30
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 overly broad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 30 is DENIED.

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 TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 Plaintiffs’ definition of the term “YOU” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 31
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 overly broad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 31 is DENIED.

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 TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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. FCA US also objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of the term “YOU” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 32
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 overly broad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 32 is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe the numbers of owners of 2018 Jeep Compass vehicles who have complained of any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiffs presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 this case and the request is unreasonably cumulative and duplicative. FCA US also objects to Plaintiffs’ 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 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. Defendant’s objection as to overly broad is sustained. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 33 is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to all Technical Service Bulletins (“TSBs”) which have been issued for 2018 Jeep Compass 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.

[Ed.: N.B., for this and several succeeding RFP’s, the vehicle in the instant lawsuit is a 2021 Jeep Gladiator.]

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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.

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 Plaintiffs’ definition of the term “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

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 is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35:

All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to all Recalls which have been issued for 2018 Jeep Compass 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 TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 Plaintiffs’ definition of the term “YOUR” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

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 is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36:

All DOCUMENTS which describe or discuss above-average repair rates to 2020 Jeep Compass vehicles.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 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.

Defendant’s objection as to overly broad is sustained. Defendant’s objection as to “above-average repair rates” being vague and ambiguous is sustained.

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

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 TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 Plaintiffs’ definition of the term “YOU” because it is overly broad and compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 37
Defendant’s objections are overruled. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP 37 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further, verified, code-compliant response, and to produce the applicable documents within 20 days, EXCEPT that this RFP is further limited to California vehicles.

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, nor would it have been just for the Court to award sanctions if either or both parties had requested them.