Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV01300, Date: 2024-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV01300    Hearing Date: March 26, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

Motion filed: 10/3/23

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Kaitlyn Barba (“Plaintiff”) 

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Defendant” or “VW”)
NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant VW to provide supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1-37, within in 10 days.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”) (Civil Code §§ 1790 et seq.) over alleged defects in her 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan (the “Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff alleges that on March 14, 2022, she purchased the Subject Vehicle, for which Defendant VW issued the manufacturer’s express warranty. (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 9.)

On May 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendants VW, Galpin Motors, Inc., and Does 1 through 10. The Complaint alleges the following four causes of action: (1) violation of the 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(b); and (4) negligent repair.

On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff propounded Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on Defendant. Subsequently, on August 1, 2023, Defendant served its Response.

On August 31 and September 29, 2023, the Court granted two Stipulation and Protective Orders filed by the parties.

On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion (the “Motion”).

On February 13, 2024, VW filed its Opposition. Subsequently, on February 20, 2024, Plaintiff replied.

ANALYSIS

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“RFP”) may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).) 

A.    All Procedural Requirements Are Met

1.      45-Day Time Limit

Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. If such notice is not given, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(c), 2033.290(c).) 

            Here, Plaintiff’s counsel states that the parties agreed to extend the deadline for Plaintiff’s filing of the Motion to October 10, 2023. (Sogoyan Decl., ¶ 20.) Plaintiff served and filed the Motion on October 3, 2023, thereby meeting the agreed deadline. (Mot., “Proof of Service.”)

2.      Meet and Confer

Before bringing a motion to compel further responses to any discovery request, the moving party must make efforts to meet and confer in good faith and submit a declaration attesting to those efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310(b)(2), 2030.300(b), 2033.290(b).)

            Plaintiff’s counsel presents a declaration detailing that he sent Defendant’s counsel a meet and confer letter, addressing Defendant’s deficient responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. (Sogoyan Decl., ¶ 19.) On August 22, 2023, after receiving a one-week extension, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter, claiming Plaintiff’s requests as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, etc., and refused to supplement its responses. (Id., ¶ 21.) A second meet and confer letter was served on Defendant on September 19, 2023. (Id., ¶ 22.) Despite these efforts, Defendant has not yet supplied the supplemental responses as requested by Plaintiff. (Id., ¶ 23.)

            Given these circumstances, it appears unlikely that the parties will be able to resolve their issues through an informal meet and confer process prior to the filing the instant Motion. Consequently, the Court determines that the meet and confer requirement under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 subdivision (b) is satisfied.

3.      Separate Statement

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for production must be accompanied by a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(3).) “A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

Plaintiff has met the above requirement by filing a separate statement explaining the demand for production at issue, Plaintiff’s responses, and why further responses are necessary.

B.     Good Cause

Plaintiff seeks to compel VW’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, for all Request Nos. 1 through 37.

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production shall “set forth specific facts showing good cause”. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) To establish “good cause,” the moving party must show (1) the items demanded are relevant to the subject matter and (2) specific facts justify discovery of the requested items (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1); see Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

For RFP Nos. 1-15, Plaintiff contends that the document sought are related to Plaintiff’s Subject Vehicle and crucial for proving a nonconformity that substantially impaired its use, value, or safety, which Defendant and/or its authorized representative failed to repair after a reasonable number of attempts. (Sogoyan Decl., ¶ 23.)

For RFP Nos. 16-32, Plaintiff asserts that these RFPs pertain to Defendant VW’s warranty, vehicle repurchase policy, procedure, and practices. Specifically, these RFPs seek documents related to Defendant’s written warranties and the policies and procedures for determining coverage under said warranties, training related to warranty coverage, etc. Plaintiff argues that these documents are probative in demonstrating Defendant’s awareness of a prevalent defect that Defendant and its authorized repair facilities were unable to repair. (Sogoyan Decl., ¶ 24.)

For RFP Nos. 33-37, Plaintiff highlights that the SBA allows for a civil penalty of up to two times the actual damages upon showing that manufacturer willfully failed to comply with any of its obligations under the SBA. (Mot., at 9.) Plaintiff asserts that RFP Nos. 33-37 relate to Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s Subject Vehicle, as well as Defendant’s internal investigation and warranty records. Plaintiff argues that these documents are critical for establishing the “willfulness” of the manufacture through internal investigation and warranty records of other customers’ complaints regarding similar issues, citing Jensen v. BMW of N.A., LLC (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 121, 136.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has established the relevance of RFP Nos. 1-37. Furthermore, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the information sought about complaints regarding similar vehicles could suggest a pervasive defect or non-conformity, potentially indicating Defendant’s awareness of the issue or its lack of action in response. (See Santana v. FCA US LLC (2020) 56.Cal.App.5th 334; Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154 [“‘other vehicle testimony was not unduly prejudicial. It did not concern simply other vehicles. It was limited to the [defective component] in [p]laintiff’s truck and other vehicles. [plaintiff’s expert] described what Ford itself had done to notify dealers and technicians about problems with this [defective component] model. Thus, everything about which they testified that applied to other vehicles applied equally to [p]laintiff’s vehicle. Such evidence certainly was probative and not unduly prejudicial.”].)

Based on these arguments, the Court concludes that good cause exists to compel further responses. The burden now shifts to Defendant to justify its objections.

C.    VW’s Responses

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210 provides,  “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[,] (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand[,] and (3) An objection to the particular demand[.]” 

Here, in its Opposition, VW claims to have provided complete responses to RFP Nos. 1-5, 8-28, 31, and 34-35. Additionally, VW asserts that it has provided code-compliant responses to RFP Nos. 6, 7, and 30, representing its inability to comply with these requests. Furthermore, VW argues that it has properly objected to RFP Nos. 29, and 32-37. (Opp’n., at 3.)

1.      RFP Nos. 1, 2

VW’s responses to the RFP Nos. 1 and 2 indicate, “Defendant will comply with this Request in whole. All specifically identified documents - if any - in the demanded category that are in VWGoA's possession, custody, or control and to which no objection has been made will be included in the production. See Exhibits A-H.” (See generally, Def.’s Separate Statement.)

The Court notes that the initial portion of the response commits to full compliance with the specific demand. However, Plaintiff argues that the later part of the response is non-compliant, as it reserves for VW a self-created right not to produce documents to which it may object. (Pl.’s Separate Statement, at 4.) Upon reviewing the Demands, the Court finds itself in disagreement with Plaintiff’s contention.

“All DOCUMENTS which YOU identified in YOUR response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Special Interrogatories.” (RFP, No. 1.)

“All DOCUMENTS which YOU identified in YOUR response to Plaintiff s First Set of Form Interrogatories.” (RFP, No. 2.)

The Court observes that these two RFP Nos. seek documents associated with VW’s responses to other discovery requests, namely the First Set of Special Interrogatories and First Set of Form Interrogatories. Consequently, if VW has validly objected to those other requests, it maintains the right to be consistent in its response to the current RFPs and not to produce the documents responsive to the underlying discovery request to which valid objections have been made. 

Therefore, the Court concludes that VW’s responses to RFP Nos. 1 and 2 are compliant with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210 subdivision (a)(1).

2.      RFP Nos. 6, 7, and 30

VW responses to RFP Nos. 6, 7, and 30 state, “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and interpreting the request as excluding privileged communications between VWGoA and its attorneys, after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no documents responsive to this request exist within VWGoA's custody, possession, or control because the documents have never existed.”

Plaintiff contends that these responses also include improper objections. Specifically, VW objects to RFP No. 6 on the grounds of premature disclosure of expert information, to RFP No. 7 as being overbroad and irrelevant, and to RFP No. 30 for not sufficiently particularizing each category of item under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030(c)(1), being overbroad, vague, and ambiguous, seeking disclosure of attorney-client, confidential information, and seeking premature disclosure of expert information. (See generally, Def.’s Separate Statement.) However, the Court deems these objections without merits.

For RFP Nos. 6 and 30, VW’s objections fail to identify with particularity any document falling within any the category of premature disclosure of expert information, or protected work product, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240 subdivisions (b) and (c). For RFP No. 7, a merely assertion of objection does not overcome the relevance established by Plaintiff as is discussed in the previous good cause analysis.

Despite finding these objections groundless, the Court notes VW’s assertion of having conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry to the response but concluded that it has never been in the possession, custody, or control of the requirement documents. (See e.g., Def.’s Separate Statement, at 51.) Accordingly, there is no indication that any objection, albeit deemed invalid, has hindered VW’s diligent search and reasonable inquiry.

Therefore, the Court finds VW’s responses to RFP Nos. 6, 7, and 30 to be compliant with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210 subdivision (a)(2).

3.      RFP Nos. 4, 5, 8-29, 31-37

Firstly, VW maintains, in its Opposition, that it has already produced its documents in response to the above-listed RFP Nos. (Opp’n., at 11.)

The responses to the RFP Nos. 4, 5, 8-29, and 31-37 are notably consistent, indicating that “all responsive documents in the demanded category that are in VWGoA's possession, custody, or control and to which no objection has been made will be included in the attached document production. See Exhibits [].” (See generally, Def.’s Separate Statement.)

In contrast, Plaintiff argues in the Reply that the 73 pages of documents produced by VW, which solely consist of warranty repair information for the Subject Vehicle, are insufficient. Plaintiff points out that the absence of documents regarding the defects reported in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model. (Reply, at 3.)

Given the Court’s determination that information pertaining to other vehicles of the same year, make and model is relevant and often ordered for production in other SBA cases, it concludes that VW’s stance is effectively countered by Plaintiff. Consequently, the Court proceeds to examine VW’s objections to these RFP Nos.

a)      Relevance, Overbreadth, Vagueness Objections

“[The] rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery [Citations], and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases. (Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) The key question is whether a discovery request is “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) The court weighs the cost, time, expense, and disruption of normal business against the probative value of the material which might be disclosed. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223.) The burden rests on the propounding party to provide evidence for a court to determine if these conditions are met. (Ibid.)  

“When discovery requests are grossly overbroad on their face, and hence do not appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need, a reasonable inference can be drawn of an intent to harass and improperly burden.” (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

The Court finds the following RFP Nos directly relevant and not overbroad: RFP Nos. 4, 5, and 8-15 (with their scope limited to information regarding the Subject Vehicle) and RFP Nos. 17, 18, 21, 26, and 31-37 (seeking relevant documents from 2016 or 2018 to the present). Therefore, the Court OVERRULES objections to RFP Nos. 4, 5, 8-15, 17, 18, 21, 26, and 31-37 on grounds of relevance or overbreadth.

            On the other hand, RFP Nos. 16, 19, 20, 22-25, and 27-29, which request documents related to VW’s internal policies, procedures, and practices for warranty, replacement, or repurchase, lack a specified time frame, making them susceptible to overbreadth objections. Consequently, the Court instructs Plaintiff to specify a time frame for the requested documents, or otherwise narrow their scope.

Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS VW’s objections to RFP Nos. 16, 19, 20, 22-25, and 27-29 based on overbreadth.

b)     Attorney Work Product Privilege and Trade Secret Material

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240 subdivision (c) provides, “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.”

The party claiming a trade secret privilege has the burden of establishing its existence.  (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1393 (Bridgestone).) The propounding party must then make a showing that the discovery sought is relevant and necessary to proving or defending against an element of one or more causes of action in the case and that it is reasonably essential to resolving the lawsuit. (Id.) Upon this showing, it is up to the holder of the privilege to show that a protective order would be inadequate. (Id.) “Either party may propose or oppose less intrusive alternatives to disclosure of the trade secret, but the burden is upon the trade secret claimant to demonstrate that an alternative to disclosure will not be unduly burdensome to the opposing side and that it will maintain the same fair balance in the litigation that would have been achieved by disclosure.” (Id.) 

VW uniformly objects to the RFP Nos. at issue based on claims of attorney work product privilege and trade secret material. However, VW does not comply with the requirements outlined in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240 subdivision (c), failing to provide sufficient factual information for Plaintiff to evaluate the merits of the objection. Moreover, VW does not fulfill its burden to establish the existence of such trade secret materials per the instruction in the Bridgestone case.

Therefore, the Court OVERRULES this objection against all RFP Nos. at issue.

4.      RFP No. 3

RFP No. 3 requests, “All DOCUMENTS which evidence, support, refer, or relate to each of the affirmative defenses as set forth in YOUR Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.”

VW objects to RFP No. 3, claiming it is overbroad and invades privileged work product information. The Court OVERRULES these objections for the following reasons.

The Court of Appeal, in Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093 (Liberty), upheld a trial court’s decision to grant terminating sanctions against a party that failed to provide meaningful supplemental responses to a form interrogatory. The interrogatory requested the responding party to state all facts underpinning its denials and affirmative defenses in the answer, identify all persons all had knowledge of these facts, and specify all documents that supported its denial and affirmative defense. (Id., at 1096.

  In Liberty, the responding party’s second supplemental response to the interrogatory referred to “a belief that contracts of insurance were improperly implemented and interpreted,” and to answer further would require it to “make a compilation or summary of information[,]” and to identify the documents require it to “make ... available further review[.]” (Id., at 1098) The liberty court deemed such responses to be “evasive and incomplete”, reasoning that “[a] party cannot intelligently defend itself against affirmative defenses or damage claims when the other side's discovery responses consist of legal double-talk and provide no useful information.” (Id., at 1105.)

The Court finds the ruling in the Liberty case instructive and applicable to the Request for Production of Documents at hand.

Applying the Liberty decision’s rationale to the present matter, VW’s objection to RFP No. 3 is found lacking. VW contends that the request’s language - “evidence, support, refer, or relate to” - is overbroad and invades the attorney-client privilege and protected attorney work product.  Moreover, VW fails to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240 subdivision (c) to provide sufficient factual information for Plaintiff to evaluate the merits of the privilege objection. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES VW’s objections to RFP No. 3, warranting VW to provide further supplemental responses.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Request Nos. 3-15, 17, 18, 21, 26, and 30-37.

The Court DENIES the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Request Nos. 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 22-25, and 27-29.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 3-15, 17, 18, 21, 26, and 30-37, within 15 days.

Moving party is ordered to provide notice of this order.