Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV00653, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00653    Hearing Date: August 11, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

ALLEGATIONS: 

On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff Tammyrose Lustre (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against American Honda Motor Co., Inc.  (“Honda”) for alleged violation of the Song Beverly Act. The Complaint alleges five causes of action for (1) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act–Breach of Express Warranty and (2) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act–Breach of Implied Warranty.

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to her Request for the Production of Documents (“RFPD”).

HISTORY: 

On June 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed her motion to compel further production. On July 28, 2023, Honda filed its opposition. On August 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed her reply.

RELIEF REQUESTED:   

Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order compelling Honda’s response to Plaintiff’s RFPD as follows:

RFPD Nos. 45 and 46 pertaining to Honda’s internal investigation and analysis of the alleged defects of Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Honda has served supplemental responses to RFPD Nos. 18, 48, and 49. As such, Plaintiff no longer seeks compulsion of responses to those requests.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive, or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (C.C.P. § 2031.310(c).) 

A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See C.C.P. § 2031.310(b)(1).) In Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good cause” as a showing that there is “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and 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.”  

If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) 

"The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (C.C.P. § 2017.020(a).) Generally, objections on the ground of burden require the objecting party to produce evidence of: (a) the propounding party's subjective intent to create burden or (b) the amount of time and effort it would take to respond. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) However, no such evidence is necessary where discovery is obviously overbroad on its face. (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)  

II.                 MERITS

Meet and Confer

Upon review, the Court finds the meet and confer efforts sufficient. (Tran Decl. ¶ 9, Exhs. C-D.)

RFPD

Plaintiff seeks further production of documents in response to the following requests:

RFPD No. 45: All DOCUMENTS evidencing complaints by owners of 2019 Honda Civic 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.

RFPD No. 46: All DOCUMENTS evidencing warranty repairs to 2019 Honda Civic vehicles regarding any of the components that YOU or YOUR authorized repair facilities performed repairs on under warranty.

To determine whether responses can be compelled the Court must first determine if Plaintiff has shown good cause. Plaintiff states the existence of potential complaints about vehicles of the same make, model, and year to manufacturer are probative of whether Honda’s refusal to repurchase the vehicle was “willful” as required by Song-Beverly. Plaintiff argues this potential probative value creates good cause for its requests. The Court agrees. Plaintiff’s requests relate directly to Defendant's investigation, analysis, and communications regarding the same defects or same parts as the subject vehicle. The good cause showing is not stringent and is adequately made here.

If good cause is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to disclosure of the documents.  Honda objects to each RFPD on the same grounds. The Court will address them in turn.

Honda first objects to these requests on grounds the terms are vague and ambiguous. The Court finds Plaintiff’s Requests for Documents are not vague and ambiguous as they contain clear parameters as to the vehicles the requests concern. Honda provides no further argument as to how these requests are vague or capable of being interpreted outside their plain meaning.

Honda also objects on grounds the requests are overbroad and seek documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because they are not limited to the vehicle at issue in this action.

In the discovery context, information is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. [citations omitted] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612.) It must be noted that discovery rules are to be applied liberally “and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.” (Cruz v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 646, 653-654.) 

Evidence regarding other vehicles with similar defects as Plaintiff’s has been founds to potentially be admissible at trial in a lemon law action. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154; see also Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 971.) The Court disagrees with Honda’s argument that Donlen is irrelevant to the issue of discoverability. (Oppo. pg. 11.). While Donlen does not specifically address the scope of discovery requests, it does concern the admissibility of evidence of defects in similar vehicles. It follows that if evidence of a type is admissible then it must also be discoverable.

Honda also objects on grounds the requests are burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. However, Honda fails to substantiate any objection based on undue burden. Undue burden objections must be accompanied by a specific factual showing setting forth the amount of work necessary to respond to the subject discovery. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court supra, 56 Cal.2d 407, at 417-418.) Honda has made no such showing.

Sanctions

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (C.C.P. § 2033.290(d).)

Here, Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. As such, the Court finds Defendant’s opposition was substantially justified. Likewise, the Court finds Plaintiff’s motions were not without merit.  The Court accordingly declines to award sanctions at this time.

III.              CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has shown good cause for an order that further documents be produced, and Honda has not justified its objections to Plaintiff’s requests. As such, the Court GRANTS the motion with respect to RFPD Nos. 45 and 46.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Tammyrose Lustre’s Motion to Compel Further Responses came on regularly for hearing on August 11, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES IS GRANTED IN PART, AS TO RFPD NOS. 45 AND 46.

DEFENDANT HAS 30 CALENDAR DAYS TO COMPLY WITH THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES.

THE COURT DECLINES TO GRANT SANCTIONS.

PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE, UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: August 11, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles