Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: "Patel v. Aston Martin Lagonda of North American, Inc.", Date: 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling
TENTATIVE RULING:
Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs
Plaintiff Akshay Patel moves to strike objections and compel further responses from Defendant Aston Martin Lagonda of North America, Inc., to RFPs (Set One). For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.
ANALYSIS:
Here, the motion was timely filed.
A motion to compel further responses “shall” set forth “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) Case law provides the burden is on a moving party to show good cause. (See, e.g., Digital Music News, LLC v. Super. Ct. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224 [disapproved on other grounds by Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531]; Kirkland v. Super. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)
To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to demonstrate both: (1) relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents 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. Super. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2019) ¶ 8:1495.6.)
Specifically, the moving party can also show good cause by “identify[ing] a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain[ing] how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.” (Digital Music News, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 224.) The fact that there is no alternative source for the information sought is an important factor in establishing good cause for inspection, but is not necessary in every case. (Associated Brewers Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 588.)
Arguments made in the moving papers or in a separate statement are insufficient to satisfy this requirement; good cause must be shown by way of admissible evidence, such as by declaration. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224 [motion to compel production of documents must be supported by factual evidence by way of declarations setting forth specific facts justifying each category of materials sought to be produced; arguments in a separate statement or in briefs are insufficient].) Only if good cause is shown by the moving party does the burden then shift to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure—the same as on motions to compel responses to interrogatories or deposition questions. (Kirkland v. Super. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)
RFP No. 10 requests “[a] copy of the Workshop Manual specifying for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” Although not included in the Separate Statement, the RFP specifies that: “This request will be understood to include production of any and all versions of the Service Manual and/or Repair Manual for the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”
Defendant responded by asserting a number of objections.
Plaintiff makes no good cause showing, but good cause is apparent on the face of the RFP. Defendant does not justify the objections asserted, instead arguing that no further response is needed because it produced the Warranty Policy and Procedures Manual on 06/07/2022.
A party must respond separately to each RFP with: (1) a statement of compliance; (2) a representation the party lacks the ability to comply; or (3) an objection to the particular RFP.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210(a).) A statement of compliance “shall state 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)
Here, Defendant produced a document with a different title than the one(s) requested. Without a statement of compliance, neither Plaintiff nor this court can determine whether Defendant has complied with its obligations under the Code to produce all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control. Therefore, the court GRANTS the motion as to RFP No. 10.
RFP Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 41, and 51 request documents regarding the electrical defect in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle—including the Vehicle Warranty History Reports for all repurchased or replaced vehicles due to the defect, and communications with any government agency regarding the defect in other vehicles. RFP Nos. 34 and 38 request all documents relating to Defendant’s evaluation of customers’ requests for repurchase. RFP No. 42 requests all documents relating to the organizational chart of people within Defendant’s customer service call center or prelitigation department.
Absent a good cause showing by Plaintiff, these RFPs are overly broad on their face. Plaintiff makes no good cause showing as to these RFPs, and good cause is not apparent on the face of them. Therefore, the court DENIES the motion as to RFP Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 34, 38, 41, 42, and 51.
No later than 10 days from the service of the notice of ruling, Defendant shall provide a Code-compliant, further verified response to RFP No. 10 and produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to RFP No. 10 by the same date.
Plaintiff to give notice.