Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 23STCV12267, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12267    Hearing Date: January 12, 2024    Dept: 68

Esdras Cristobal Hernandez vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 23STCV12267

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Moving Party: Plaintiff Esdras Cristobal Hernandez

Motion

After the Court required the parties to meet and confer, there are two issues left unresolved. Plaintiff Esdras Cristobal Hernandez (Plaintiff) argues that Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s (Defendant) responses to Request for Production Nos. 30 and 31 are insufficient.

Request No. 30: Plaintiff requested any document that related to Defendant’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals which Defendant provided to its authorized repair facilities “on how to handle customer concerns that are not duplicated at the time of the repair visit…”. Defendant responded that after a diligent search and inquiry, Defendant has “no automotive ‘Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals’ provided to authorized repair facilities and no such manual has ever existed….”

Plaintiff simply believes that there must be some documents that Defendant has not produced. But nothing is provided by Plaintiff to support its suspicion.  Defendant provided a proper response that there are no responsive documents.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request No. 30 is denied.

Request No. 31: Plaintiff requested other Customer Complaints that are substantially similar to complaints made by Plaintiff with respect to the subject vehicle in other 2019 Honda Pilot vehicles. Defendant opposes this request on the basis that other customers’ complaints are irrelevant to whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Act. Defendant also objects on the basis that this request is vague and overbroad as to the types of complaints sought. In Plaintiff’s response, Plaintiff argues that he seeks these complaints in order to establish that Defendant knew of the defects so that Plaintiff can support his claim for civil penalties. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s complaint only turns on whether Plaintiff’s particular vehicle had a defect, and nothing requires Plaintiff to look to other consumer vehicles in this case.

The Court sustains the objections of Defendant.  The request is vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome, as well as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Plaintiff argues that this type of discovery is intended not to show that Plaintiff’s own vehicle is defective entitling Plaintiff to relief under Song-Beverly, but rather that Plaintiff is entitled a to civil penalty because Defendant was aware of “similar complaints.”  It is an unjustified fishing expedition.  The motion to compel further response to Request No. 31 is denied.

Order

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery responses is DENIED.