Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This is a lemon law case.  Plaintiff Camilo Vallecilla bought a 2018 Lexus IS 300 (the “Subject Vehicle”).  The Subject Vehicle is manufactured, distributed and warranted by Defendant Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.  During the warranty period, Plaintiff presented the Subject Vehicle for repairs for engine and other defects.  None of the repair attempts worked.  Plaintiff alleges Defendant refused to repurchase or replace Plaintiff’s car as required under the Song-Beverly Act (“SBA”).       

On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff served his First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”).  For purposes of the present motion, the relevant requests are:  

15. Each written warranty provided by YOU for the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 

17. YOUR workshop manual(s) for the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 

18. The operative Franchise Agreement, if any, on the date of sale of the SUBJECT VEHICLE between YOU and the dealership that sold the SUBJECT VEHICLE to Plaintiff. 

  

24. All scripts and flow charts that YOU utilize in handling California consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase or replacement since 2022. 

 

25. All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for determining what constitutes a repair presentation to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song Beverly Act since 2022. 

 

26. All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for determining what constitutes a “non-conformity” to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2022. 

 

27. All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for determining what constitutes a “substantial impairment” of a vehicle’s use, value, or safety to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2022.  

 

29. All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for establishing the turn-around time to respond to a vehicle repurchase request pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2022. 

 

31. All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe YOUR policies, procedures and/or instructions since 2022 which YOUR authorized repair facilities should follow regarding customer requests for a refund of the price paid for a vehicle pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act. 

 

32. All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies and procedures from 2022 to the present for proactively complying with the Song-Beverly Act in California by offering a repurchase or replacement of a qualifying vehicle without a consumer request to do so. 

 

37. DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify all of YOUR OBDII codes for the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 

 

38. DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all of YOUR vehicle symptom codes for the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 

 

39. DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all of YOUR vehicle component repair codes for the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 

 

40. DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all of YOUR customer complaint codes from 2022 to present. 

 

41. DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all labor operation codes provided by YOU to YOUR authorized dealerships from 2022 to present. 

 

45. All DOCUMENTS evidencing complaints of 2018 Lexus IS 300 vehicles regarding any of the complaints that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented to YOUR or YOUR authorized repair facilities for repair during the warranty period. 

 

46. All DOCUMENTS evidencing warranty repairs to 2018 Lexus IS 300, vehicles regarding any of the components that YOU or YOUR authorized repair facilities performed repairs on under warranty. 

 

(Ex. A to Thomas Decl.) 

 

On December 27, 2023, Defendant served its unverified responses to the RFPs.  (Ex. B to Thomas Decl.)  Defendant asserted only objections to RFP Nos. 15, 17, 18, 24-27, 29, 31, 32, 37-41 and 45-46.  (Ex. B to Thomas Decl.)   

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the RFPs.  Plaintiff argues that the disputed requests seek relevant information, and Defendant’s objections are not code-compliant, are “nuisance” objections and have no merit.  Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,310.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

 

To request further production, a movant must establish: (1) good cause for the production (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1);¿Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403); and (2) that a further response is needed because (a) the responding party’s¿statement of compliance with the demand to produce is incomplete (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1)), (b) the responding party’s representation that it is unable to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(2)),¿(c)¿the responding party’s objection in the response is without merit or is too general (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(3);¿Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1127), or (d) if the responding party objected to the production of ESI on the ground that it is not reasonably accessible the movant can show that the (i) ESI is reasonably accessible or (ii) there is good cause for production of the ESI regardless of its accessibility (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (e)). 

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).) “To establish ‘good cause,’ the burden is on the moving party to show both: [¶] 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 [¶] Specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial.) [Citations.] [¶] The fact that there is no alternative source for the information sought is an important factor in establishing ‘good cause’ for inspection.  But it is not essential in every case." (Edmon & Karnow, California¿¿Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) ¶ 8:1495.6.) 

“For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation.]¿Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation.] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)  Doubts about¿relevance generally are resolved in favor of permitting discovery.  (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior¿Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 755-756.) 

“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[.]” (Edmon & Karnow, supra, at ¶ 8:1496.) 

MEET AND CONFER 

 

Motions to compel further responses to discovery¿requests must always be accompanied by a meet-and confer-declaration demonstrating a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve each issue presented by the¿motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)  Here, Plaintiff sent two meet and confer letters to informally resolve the parties’ dispute.  (Exs. C, D to Thomas Decl.)  The parties also attended an Informal Discovery Conference, but no agreement was reached.  (Thomas Decl. ¶9.)  On this record, the Court concludes Plaintiff has satisfied his meet and confer requirements.   

ANALYSIS 

 

Omnibus Objection 

 

Defendant objects to all of Plaintiff’s requests because they seek “all documents” or “documents sufficient” to identify or describe.  Defendant argues that “under the law of California, Plaintiff is required (but failed) to list the documents sought with the particularity under §2031.030.”  The Court disagrees.  The law only requires Plaintiff to “reasonably particularize” each category of document sought, which Plaintiff has done by seeking documents concerning a reasonably specific subject matter (e.g., policies regarding the turn around time for responding to repurchase requests).  If the rule were otherwise, a requesting party would invariably be unable to meet such a test because they would not know the specific documents in the responding party’s possession.     

RFP No. 15 

 

RFP No. 15 seeks each warranty Defendant issued for the Subject Vehicle.  This document is clearly relevant and should be produced.  Defendant contends the warranty is already in Plaintiff’s possession, but that is not a proper basis to refuse to produce documents.  (Zoriall LLC v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. (May 24, 2022) 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 37561 at * 10-11; Excelsior at the Americana at Brand Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Van Richter (April 14, 2023) 223 Cal. Super. LEXIS 21383 at 27.)  

RFP No. 17 

RFP No. 17 seeks the workshop manual applicable to the Subject Vehicle.  Plaintiff alleges the manual is relevant because it provides directions to the technicians at Defendant’s authorized repair facilities on how to perform the repairs and is therefore relevant to the reasonableness of the repairs.  Defendant’s only objection is that the manual is publicly available.  But Plaintiff claims, and Defendant does not dispute, that the manual is only publicly available for a fee.  The Court concludes that the manual should be produced.        

RFP No. 18   

RFP No. 18 seeks a copy of the franchise agreement between Defendant and the dealership that sold and repaired the Subject Vehicle.  Plaintiff argues the requested documents are relevant to show the agency relationship between Defendant and the dealership that failed to properly repair the Subject Vehicle.  Defendant argues that “there is no issue in this matter regarding whether the dealers that repaired the vehicle were authorized dealers and thus, no need to establish an agency relationship in this matter.”  (Supp. Opp. at 6:6-10.)  Plaintiff has not pointed to any actual defense raised by Defendant in this case challenging agency.  And the Court will hold Defendant to its word that it does not intend to challenge agency.  Accordingly, this request does not seek relevant documents, and the Court will not compel production of documents responsive to this request. 

RFP Nos. 24-27, 29-32 

RFP Nos. 24-27, 29-32 seek policy and procedure documents relevant to the issue of whether there is a willful violation of the Song-Beverly Act and whether Plaintiff is therefore entitled to civil penalties.  Courts have found similar policy and procedure documents relevant.  (Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (1995) 90 CalApp.4th 1094, 1104; Johnson v. Ford Motor Company (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191, 1200.)  Defendant argues that there is no willful violation because it offered to repurchase the Subject Vehicle.  While Defendant may ultimately be correct, its argument that Plaintiff’s claims have no merit are not proper on a discovery motion and should be raised, if at all, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment.  The Court also notes that Plaintiff is vigorously disputing that Defendant made an offer to repurchase.  The Court will compel production of documents responsive to these requests.   

RFP Nos. 37-41 

RFP Nos. 37-41 seek various codes relating to the same year, make and model as the Subject Vehicle.  They are not connected to codes for the particular defects at issue in the Subject Vehicle.  According to Defendant, it has already produced the list of diagnostic codes with explanation for the defects found in the Subject Vehicle.  (Supp. Opp. at 7:12-16.)  Plaintiff’s claim that it needs the codes to understand the repair orders and other internal documents produced by Defendant is, therefore, without merit.  These requests do not seek relevant documents, and the Court will not compel their production.   

RFP Nos. 45-46 

RFP. No. 45 seeks documents relating to similar complaints involving cars of the same year, make and model as the Subject Vehicle.   RFP No. 46 seeks documents relating to any warranty repairs involving cars of the same year, make and model as the Subject Vehicle.  The Court concludes RFP No. 45 seeks relevant documents, while RFP No. 46 is overbroad as it is not limited to similar defects found in the Subject Vehicle.   

The California Court of Appeal has held that evidence of other customer complaints is admissible, which by necessity means they are also relevant.  In Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154, the Court of Appeal reversed the granting of a motion for new trial after the jury returned a verdict in the pickup truck owner’s favor.  Donlen held that the trial court did not err in denying Ford’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of other customers’ complaints about the same transmission model Ford installed in plaintiff’s truck.  While the question in Donlen was one of admissibility, the case is instructive with regard to the relevance of information concerning other vehicles.¿ 

In Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 971, the defendant was ordered during discovery to produce documents regarding other similar complaints. ¿The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by not imposing terminating sanctions on the defendant after it defied four separate orders to produce documents.  (Id. at 993.) 

In Santana v. FCA US LLC (2020) 56 Cal. App.4th 334, the Court concluded there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that the defendant had willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act, and this evidence included documents showing defendant’s knowledge of similar defects in similar cars.  (Id. at 344-345.) 

At least one federal court has also concluded that evidence of other customer complaints is relevant.  In Jensen v. BMW of North America, LLC (S.D. Cal. 2019) 328 F.R.D. 557, 564, the federal court ordered a defendant to search specific databases for other customers’ complaints, but limited the scope to “vehicles of the same year, make, model as Plaintiff’s subject vehicle and limited to only those records reporting problems with the same defect codes listed in any repair records pertaining to Plaintiff’s vehicle and part numbers under warranty in Plaintiff’s vehicle, and to produce those documents.”  The Court concluded that other customer complaints “could conceivably be relevant to whether BMW acted reasonably in denying Plaintiff’s warranty claim.  A fact finder may find BMW’s knowledge or lack of knowledge about the same defects to be a consideration in deciding whether BMW acted in good faith as to Plaintiff’s specific case.”   

The Court also finds analogous product liability and insurance bad faith cases where courts have found evidence of similar incidents to be admissible.  (Elsworth v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 540, 555 (“Evidence of prior accidents is admissible to prove a defective condition, knowledge or the cause of an accidence, provided that the circumstances of the other accidents are similar and not too remote.”); Moore v. American United Life Ins. Co. (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 610, 625-628 (evidence of a disability insurer’s handling of claims against other insureds is admissible in a bad faith suit against the insurer).)   

Notwithstanding, the Court must balance the relevance of the discovery against the undue burden of production.  To address the burden, the Court will limit the RFPs to other customer complaints in California.  (Powell v. Bmw of N. Am. (July 25, 2017) 2017 Cal. Super. LEXIS 71443¿*3 (narrowing request for other customer complaints to California customers); Orozco v. General Motors, LLC (November 7, 2022) 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 72640¿*5 (same); Baisa v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (September 15, 2023) 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 67224¿*1 (same).) 

If, after the documents are produced, Plaintiff’s counsel believes that the production of documents limited to only Defendant’s California customers is too narrow, Plaintiff’s counsel can schedule a hearing with the court.  During that hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel can seek additional production of documents from a broader customer base, possibly the Western United States, related to the engine defect issues similar to those that Plaintiff is complaining about related to the same year, make and model as Plaintiff’s car.  Defendant reserves the right to oppose any such expansion at the hearing. 

In sum, the Court will compel production of RFP No. 45, but denies the motion to compel as to RFP No. 46.   

Request for Sanctions 

Plaintiff requests sanctions pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(h).  Under § 2031.310(h), monetary sanctions shall be imposed where a party unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel further response where the party failed to act with substantial justification.  Here, Defendant’s opposition was not entirely unsuccessful, and while the Court overruled several of Defendant’s objections, it cannot conclude that they are entirely without justification with the exception of Defendant’s objection to producing the warranty and workshop manual which the Court deems entirely meritless.  However, as the objections were easy to refute, and the Court cannot reasonably parse out the fees associated solely to responding to those objections, the Court declines to award any sanctions.     

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to his RFPs.   

DATED:   November 4, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court