Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 23GDCV00298, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23GDCV00298 Hearing Date: September 8, 2023 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 09/08/2023 – 10:00am
Case No: 23GDCV00298
Trial Date: 12/16/2024
Case Name: JOSE OLIVEROS, an individual, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, and DOES 1-10 inclusive
Plaintiff
, Jose Oliveros, moves this Court for an Order to strike Defendant Ford Motor
Company’s (Ford or Defendant) objections and compel further responses to
Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 4, 17-33, and 37
Plaintiff
brings this instant Motion pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§
2031.310 and 2031.320, on the grounds that Defendant failed to provide adequate
responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs, which seek documents relevant to her
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”) causes of action.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs
filed a Complaint on 02/14/2023 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.
Plaintiff
alleges that on August 15, 2019, Plaintiff leased a 2019 Ford Ranger. Further,
Plaintiff alleges the Subject Vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff with serious
defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and
nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to, suspension, engine,
and transmission system defects
LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION
CCP § 2031.310(a)
provides that a party demanding a document inspection may move for an order
compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that:
“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is
incomplete.
(2) A
representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
(3)
An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”
Under CCP § 2031.310 (b)(1), “The motion shall set forth
specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the
demand.”
ANALYSIS
As a preliminary matter,
Plaintiff’s Reply correctly notes how the Opposition was late. Reply argues
that given the failure to timely file an opposition, the Court should grant
Plaintiff’s motion on that basis alone.
Here, the Court will
consider the untimely Opposition so that the Court can rule on the moving,
opposition, and reply papers on their merits.
I.
RFPs 17-23, 25-26, 33
The Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFPs 17-23, 25-26, and 33 as MOOT.
This motion was served on
7/24/2023, and Defendant served supplemental responses on 8/29/2023.
Although Defendant
included these supplemental responses in its Opposition Separate Statement,
this is improper because Plaintiff did not make the following motion based on
the supplemental responses since he did not yet have them.
Although the issues of
sanctions would not be moot since Defendant filed the supplemental responses
after the motion was filed, Plaintiff did not move for sanctions. “The court
may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a
motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed,
or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was
provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court,
Rule 3.1348(a).)
II.
RFP NO. 4:
All DOCUMENTS relating or
referring to Plaintiff and/or the SUBJECT VEHICLE whether those DOCUMENTS are
in YOUR possession, YOUR customer relations’ possession or YOUR customer
service’s possession, or in YOUR authorized dealership’s possession.
“SUBJECT VEHICLE” shall
mean the vehicle which is the subject of this lawsuit and identified as the
2019 Ford Ranger, bearing VIN 1FTER1EH9KLA49621.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION NO. 4:
Ford will comply with this Request in part. Ford will
produce the following documents regarding Plaintiff or the subject pickup
truck, which contain information responsive to this Request:
• Factory Invoice for the subject pickup truck;
• Vehicle Information Report for the subject pickup
truck Owner's Guide, Scheduled Maintenance Guide, and Warranty Guide for the
2019 Ranger truck, which are available for viewing and/or download at no charge
at https://owner.ford.com/tools/account/how-tos/owner-manuals.html https://owner.ford.com/tools/account/maintenance/maintenance-schedule.html;
• Information regarding the subject pickup truck from
OASIS;
• List of Technical Service Bulletins
("TSBs"), Special Service Messages ("SSMs"), and General
Service Bulletins ("GSBs") applicable to the 2019 Ford Ranger, in
general, including TSB 22-2139, which was performed on the subject pickup
truck;
• Field Service Action ("FSA") history for
the subject pickup truck, including exemplar customer letter(s) and Dealer
Bulletin(s) for FSA 19S23 and FSA 19S43, which were performed on the subject
pickup truck;
• Warranty claim history information for the subject
pickup truck received through Ford's Global System for Analytics and Reporting
("GSAR");
• Additional warranty or non-warranty claim records or
information regarding the subject pickup truck; and
• Service and repair records in Ford's possession
regarding the subject pickup truck obtained in discovery or from independent
Ford dealerships.
Ford also refers
Plaintiff to the service or repair records maintained by the dealerships that
serviced or repaired the subject pickup truck, which may contain additional
information responsive to this Request.
Further, Ford refers
Plaintiff generally to the contacts between Plaintiff’s counsel and Ford's
counsel in this case, including the pleadings and discovery exchanged
throughout the litigation. Plaintiff’s counsel is already aware of those
contacts.
Beyond this, Ford objects
to and will not further comply with this Request because it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant documents, as it is not limited to a
reasonable or relevant timeframe, or to the components or to the allegations at
issue in this case and because Plaintiff's request for all documents does not
identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. Ford also objects
to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome with respect to pleadings
and discovery in this case, or letters and communications Plaintiff exchanged
with Ford, because those materials are already in Plaintiff’s counsel's
possession. Ford also objects to this Request because it seeks documents that
may be in the possession of independent dealerships or third parties and are
not within Ford's possession, custody, or control. Ford further objects to this
Request because it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the
attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the joint defense doctrine
and/or the common interest doctrine, as the Request could encompass documents
that reflect the legal advice, mental impressions, and legal strategies
prepared for anticipated or pending litigation by Ford's attorneys, Ford's
Office of the General Counsel, or those working under their direction or
supervision.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 4
Plaintiff’s motion to
compel further responses to RFP 4 is GRANTED.
Defendant appears to be
stating it will comply in part.
Defendant’s objections as
to overly broad, unduly burdensome, relevancy, not limited to a reasonable
timeframe or the components or allegations at issue in this case,
particularity, and may be in the possession of independent dealerships or third
parties are OVERRULED.
To the extent that
Defendant asserted objections as to attorney-client privilege, work product
doctrine, joint defense doctrine and or the common interest doctrine, Defendant
did not provide a code-compliant response for the Court to evaluate whether the
objections are valid.
See CCP §2031.240:
(a) If only part of
an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or
sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of
compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the
remainder of that item or category.
(b) 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.
(c) (1) 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.
(2) It is the intent
of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is
used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to
constitute a substantive change in case law
III. RFP 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 RFP NO. 24:
Ford objects to and will
not comply with this Request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
seeks irrelevant documents and information because it is not limited to a
reasonable or relevant timeframe, the subject pickup truck, or any specific
allegation at issue in this lawsuit. In particular, customers sometimes do not
clearly articulate the basis for or clearly identify their pickup truck
concerns or any other issue with their pickup truck. Further, this is a lemon
law case under Cal. Civil Code § 1790 et seq., and the subject matter of this
case revolves exclusively around the subject pickup truck. This Request has no
bearing on whether Ford was required to repurchase Plaintiff's pickup truck
under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
In addition, customer
complaints are unique to each customer and each pickup truck. Accordingly, the
policies or procedures utilized are or may depend on the specific customer
concern because the facts and circumstances surrounding other customer complaints
vary widely depending on any number of factors, such as owner use, operation,
and maintenance, or environmental conditions, and what constitutes a pickup
truck concern to one customer may not to another. Ford also objects to this
Request because it is broad enough to seek documents protected from disclosure
by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, as this Request
could encompass documents and communications that reflect the legal advice,
mental impressions, and legal strategies prepared for anticipated or pending
litigation by Ford's attorneys, Ford's Office of the General Counsel, or those
working under their direction or supervision.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 24
The majority of
Plaintiff’s Statement of Insufficiency is rife with inapplicable boilerplate.
However, Plaintiff does state the following:
Furthermore,
Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents No. 24 seeks information
regarding Ford’s training material related to Ford’s policy to encourage
customers to give Ford another opportunity to repair their vehicles. The
documents can support Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant willfully violated
the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiff’s request meets the minimum standard of
relevancy that pertain to the documents regarding Defendant’s warranty and
repurchase policies, procedures, and practices. For instance, Plaintiff’s
Request seeks certain policies and procedures to help determine whether
Defendant’s policies and procedures pertaining to lemon law has been revised to
coincide with the advancement of the technology, engines, and transmissions
that are placed in Ford’s vehicles. Moreover, the policies and procedures would
help determine how Ford had evaluated certain vehicles in accordance with lemon
law and if their evaluation had either remained unchanged or evolved with the
advancement explained above.
(Oppo. Sep. Stmt.
p. 94.)
Here, the Court sustains
Defendant’s objection as to the request being overly broad. This RFP is not
limited in time, nor is it limited to the subject vehicle, nor is it limited to
similar vehicles of the same make, model, or year in California.
Plaintiff’s motion to
compel further responses to RFP 24 is DENIED.
IV.
RFP NO. 27:
All DOCUMENTS which evidence
or describe YOUR Lemon Law Escalation Process.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION NO. 27:
Ford objects to and will
not comply with this Request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
seeks irrelevant documents and information because it is not limited to a
reasonable or relevant timeframe, the subject pickup truck, or any specific
allegation at issue in this lawsuit. In particular, customers sometimes do not
clearly articulate the basis for or clearly identify their pickup truck
concerns or any other issue with their pickup truck. Further, this is a Song-Beverly
Act case under Cal. Civil Code § 1790 et seq., and the subject matter of this
case revolves exclusively around the subject pickup truck.
This Request has no
bearing on whether Ford was required to repurchase Plaintiff’s pickup truck
under the Song-Beverly Act. In addition, customer complaints are unique to each
customer and each pickup truck. Accordingly, the processes utilized are or may
depend on the specific customer concern because the facts and circumstances surrounding
other customer complaints vary widely depending on any number of factors, such
as owner use, operation, and maintenance, or environmental conditions, and what
constitutes a pickup truck concern to one customer may not to another.
Ford also objects to this
Request because it is broad enough to seek documents protected from disclosure
by the attorney client privilege and/or work product doctrine, as this Request
could encompass documents and communications that reflect the legal advice,
mental impressions, and legal strategies prepared for anticipated or pending
litigation by Ford's attorneys, Ford's Office of the General Counsel, or those
working under their direction or supervision.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 27
Confusingly, with respect
to RFP 27, Defendant’s Separate Statement includes a supplemental response to
RFP 27; however, Defendant’s Exhibit B in the Dizon Declaration which
contained the supplemental responses
served on Plaintiff, did not include a supplemental responses to RFP 27 served
on Plaintiff. Further, Defendant’s motion itself does not mention that a
supplemental response to RFP 27 was served. Defendant’s supplemental response
thus does not appear to be before this Court.
That being said, most of
Plaintiff’s reason to compel further is rife with boilerplate. However, in
relevant part, Plaintiff argues:
Plaintiff’s
Request for Production of Documents No. 27 seeks information regarding Ford’s
policies or procedures that describe Ford’s Lemon Law Escalation Process. The
documents can support Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant willfully violated
the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiff’s request meets the minimum standard of
relevancy that pertain to the documents regarding Defendant’s warranty and
repurchase policies, procedures, and practices. For instance, Plaintiff’s
Request seeks certain policies and procedures that is relevant in this matter
since Plaintiff unambiguously expressed concerns with the Subject Vehicle and
Plaintiff’s concerns were ignored for reasons currently unknown to Plaintiff.
As such, the policies and procedures would help determine how Ford had
evaluated the Subject Vehicle in accordance with lemon law.
(Oppo. Sep. Stmt.
p. 125.)
Plaintiff’s motion
to compel a further response to RFP 27 is DENIED. Defendant’s objection as to
overly broad is sustained. This RFP is not limited in time, nor is it limited
to the subject vehicle, nor is it limited to similar vehicles of the same make,
model, or year in California.
V.
RFPs 28-29
RFPs 28-29 are shown
below.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
NO. 28: All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe YOUR call center escalation
process.
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.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 28-29
Plaintiff’s motion to
compel further responses to RFPs 28-29 are DENIED for the same reasons as
stated in the tentative ruling for RFP 27. Defendant’s objection as to overly
broad is sustained.
VI.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:
All DOCUMENTS any
CONSULTANT provided YOU from 2016 to present that are related in any way to the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 30
Under CCP § 2031.310
(b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause
justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”
“In the more specific
context of a demand for production of a tangible thing, the party who asks the
trial court to compel production must show “good cause” for the request—but
unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product,
that burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG
Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)
Here, the Court fails to see
how Plaintiff met its burden in establishing good cause as to the instant
request. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to RFP 30 is DENIED.
VII.
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
2016 to present.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 31
Here, Plaintiff’s motion
to compel further responses to RFP 31 is DENIED. The Court fails to see how
Plaintiff met its burden in establishing good cause as to the instant request.
VIII.
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 2016 to present.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 32
Here, Plaintiff’s motion
to compel further responses to RFP 32 is DENIED. The Court fails to see how
Plaintiff met its burden in establishing good cause as to the instant request.
Plaintiff’s reason to compel further consisted entirely of boilerplate and
contained no specific argument with respect to RFP 32.
IX.
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:
Ford will comply with
this Request, in part. All documents responsive to this Request that are
located following a reasonable and diligent search and to which no objection is
being made will be included in the production. Ford will produce representative
showroom brochures applicable to 2019 Ford Ranger pickup trucks, in general.
Beyond this, Ford objects to and will not further comply with this Request
because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant documents
because it is not limited to and does not identify any specific promotional
materials related to this case. Further, Plaintiff has not alleged that he
relied upon any specific Ford promotional materials in his Complaint, making
these documents irrelevant to any issue in dispute and this Request overly
broad.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 37
Defendant’s
objections are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP
37 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a code-compliant response
without objection.
X.
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 requested sanctions. No sanctions are awarded.