Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2022-01297836, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Masoumeh Azali’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC’s further responses to his requests for production of documents, set one, nos. 1, 3, 9, 17, 37-105, 113-115, is granted.

When moving to compel further responses to document demands, the moving party is required to set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310,subdivision (b)(1).  To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show both: (1) relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the document would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and (2) specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial).  (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023) ¶ 8:1495.6.)

No. 1

No. 1 requests all repair orders relating to the subject vehicle.  While Defendant responded that it would produce responsive documents, Plaintiff states that no documents have been produced. (Pascal Decl., at ¶ 8.)  Within 20 days of the notice of ruling, Defendant is ordered to produce documents in compliance with request no. 1. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)

Nos. 3, 9, 17, 113, and 114

No. 3 requests all warranty repair documents pertaining to the subject vehicle. No. 9 asks for all recall documents related to the subject vehicle. No. 17 asks for all documents regarding the handling of warranty repairs on the subject vehicle.  No. 113 asks for documents regarding Defendant’s repair procedures that were used during the repairs of the subject vehicle. No. 114 asks for documents regarding diagnostic procedures consulted and followed while diagnosing Plaintiff's concerns for the subject vehicle.

Defendant’s responses to these requests indicate that certain documents will be produced. Defendant does not specify whether it is complying in whole or in part, or if documents are being withheld pursuant to its objections.  The responses are not Code-compliant.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.220, 2031.240.) 

As to nos. 9 and 17, Defendant notes that the documents are available elsewhere, on the internet or from the National Highway Safety Administration.  However, that does not relieve Defendant of its discovery obligations. Because the responses are not Code-compliant, it is unclear whether Defendant is complying in whole or in part, or the purpose of having noted that these documents are available elsewhere.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.210, et seq.)       

The motion is granted as to these requests.  Within 20 days of the notice of ruling, Defendant is ordered to serve verified further responses to nos. 3, 9, 17, 113, and 114 that comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.220 and 2031.240.

Nos. 37-105

Nos. 37-105 ask for documents regarding various complaints made by California owners of vehicles of the same make, year, and model as the subject vehicle.  Defendant only objected to these requests and did not substantively respond.

Plaintiff has shown good cause for further responses as information concerning other claims/complaints is relevant because prior complaints concerning vehicles of the same year, make, and model shows Defendant’s notice of a defect, and thus Defendant’s failure to act despite this knowledge.  These requests are sufficiently narrowed to only vehicles of the same make, model, and year with the alleged same defects as Plaintiff’s.  Within 20 days, Defendant is ordered to serve verified Code-compliant further responses to these requests.

No. 115

No. 115 asks for documents regarding Defendant's investigation into whether Plaintiff's vehicle should be repurchased or replaced.  Defendant only objected to this request. There is good cause for discovery of this information, as it is relevant to whether Defendant properly complied with the Song-Beverly Act. The motion is thus granted as to this request.  Within 20 days, Defendant is ordered to serve verified Code-compliant further response to no. 115.

Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.