Judge Douglas W. Stern, Case 22STCV20813 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV20813, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20813 Hearing Date: April 12, 2023 Dept: 68

Fernando Arroyo, et al., vs. Ford Motor Company, et al.., 22STCV20813

Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One)

Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One)

Moving Party – Plaintiffs Fernando Arroyo and Luz Maria Anguiano Pena

Responding Party – Defendant Ford Motor Company

This is a lemon law case arising out of issues that Plaintiffs experienced with their 2021 Ford F-150. Those issues included defects involving the Vehicle’s engine and related systems, check engine light on, cluster not lighting up, sync screen would not light up, wrench light on, cluster being black, sync screen being black, vehicle going into sleep mode, all cluster lights being on, vehicle needing to be jump started, IPC losing communication, APIM losing communication, ACM losing communication, and other defects. Plaintiffs initiate this suit after Defendant Ford Motor Company (Ford) refused to repurchase the vehicle. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges three causes of action for violation of the Song-Beverly Act and one cause of action for negligent repair (not against Ford).

Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Plaintiffs propounded special interrogatories on Ford as part of the discovery process. Plaintiffs filed this motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 14 and 39.

After reviewing the documents filed by the parties, the Court finds that the answers given by Ford to the two interrogatories are full and complete. Ford provided substantive supplemental answers to both interrogatories, giving Plaintiffs the names of several people in response to Plaintiffs’ questions.

This motion was not justified and is DENIED. The Court therefore believes that it is obligated to award sanctions against Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ attorneys for this misuse of the discovery process pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.010 and 2023.030. Accordingly, Ford file a motion for fees and costs associated with this motion.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

Plaintiffs have also filed a motion to compel further responses to its requests for production of documents. The requests at issue are Request Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 11-17, 20, 22-23, 25-26, 28-29, 33, and 37-61.

Request No. 3: Ford objected to this request on the basis that it seeks all advertisements related to the subject vehicle and is overly broad. Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not allege reliance upon specific Ford advertising or promotional materials. Plaintiffs claim that the advertisements would prove knowledge on the part of Ford, though the Court fails to see how that would be the case, or what use this knowledge would be. Motion for further response denied.

Request Nos. 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 33, 40: Ford has provided documents that are responsive to the requests, and/or has agreed to produce more specific sections of documents upon Plaintiffs’ request. Motion for further responses denied.

Request Nos. 6, 14, 15: Ford indicated that it has provided the documents that are within its possession or control, and the further documents that Plaintiffs seek are not within its possession or control. Motion for further responses denied.

Requests Nos. 25 and 26: The documents which Ford has provided are not responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests. While the requests are broad and are not focused on the Subject Vehicle, documents related to how Ford handles Song-Beverly Act claims and how Ford evaluates customers’ requests for refunds and replacements are relevant to this case, as Plaintiffs have alleged that Ford refused to repurchase their vehicle. However, limits are appropriate to this request. The time period should be limited to the time period prior to the filing of this suit when Plaintiff experienced warranty claims that might have justified the Song-Beverly warranty remedies being applied. Motion for further responses granted, subject to all claims of privilege asserted by Defendant in its written responses previously given.

Request Nos. 28, 29: Ford objects to these requests as being overly broad because they have no specific timeline and are not specific to the Subject Vehicle. Motion for further responses denied.

Requests Nos. 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61: Ford objects to these requests because they seek documents related to other customers’ vehicles that are the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle and documents related to the failure rates, customer complaints, and number of warranty claims regarding certain systems in the vehicles that are the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle. These requests are overly broad, irrelevant to this particular lemon law case, and generally fail to specify a timeline for the documents requested. Motion for further responses denied.

The Court reminds the parties of their obligations to engage in full and complete good faith efforts to meet and confer to resolve their discovery disputes. These must include actual conversations, not just exchanges of correspondence/emails. The parties must focus on the specifics of their cases, and avoid creating disputes by “off the shelf” discovery and responses. The Court cautions both parties against using boilerplate and identical objections and responses in their separate statements.

Order

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is DENIED.

2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set One) is GRANTED as to Requests Nos. 25 and 26 only with the limitations noted above.