Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV00696, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00696    Hearing Date: December 7, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Plaintiff Gabriel Reuven (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) for Ford’s alleged violation of the Song Beverly Act. Plaintiff alleges that his 2019 Ford Expedition (the “Subject Vehicle”) was manufactured with a defective engine.

Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling Ford’s further response to Plaintiff’s RFPD as follows:

RFPD Nos. 1, 3, 12, and 15 concerning the Subject Vehicle.

RFPD Nos. 17, 19, 30, 35, and 38 requesting documents related to Ford’s Internal Knowledge and Investigation of an engine defect.

RFPD Nos. 41, 43 and 44 requesting Ford’s internal documents concerning the engine defect.

RFPD Nos. 54, 55, 56, 66, 67 and 71 requesting documents related to Ford’s warranty and vehicle repurchase policies.

RFPD Nos. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80 and 81 requesting documents related to Ford’s communications with Governmental Agencies and Suppliers as concerns the engine defect in 2019 Ford Expedition vehicles.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS:

Plaintiff requests the Court strike the declarations of Jodi Schebel and Jeffrey Push in their entirety. Plaintiff argues that Ford impermissibly attempts to enter the declarations of Schebel and Push while maintaining objections of attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff asks that in the alternative, the attorney client privilege be waived, and each declarant be subject to an Evidentiary Hearing in which they may be cross-examined. Plaintiffs requests are denied.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“RFPD”) 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 “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. Sup.Ct (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 In and For Los Angeles County (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 requirements were met. (Smith Decl. ¶ 27.)

RFPD Nos. 1, 3, 12, and 15

These requests ask for all documentation in Ford’s possession related to the Subject vehicle (RFPD No. 1.), all investigations and reports regarding the cause of the defect in the Subject Vehicle (RFPD No. 3.), pre-sale and pre-purchase documents concerning a disclosure of defect in the subject vehicle (RFPD No. 12.), and any communications regarding the Subject Vehicle (RFPD No. 15.)

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for the production of each of these requests. Each of these requests concerns the Subject Vehicle directly and would be directly relevant to this litigation.

Ford’s only substantive argument in opposition is that Plaintiff has not identified any documents not produced by Ford which would be responsive, and thus has not shown good cause. The Court notes Ford reserves objections that there are documents sought by these requests which are subject to the attorney client privilege.  From this assertion, it appears there are documents which Ford is withholding on the basis of privilege. The Court also notes Ford has presented no privilege log or other information which would allow the parties to evaluate the merit of the privilege claim. (See C.C.P. § 2031.240.)

The Court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause for further production and that Ford has failed to justify its objection on the grounds of privilege. Ford’s other objections are not substantively argued in their opposition. As such, the motion to compel further responses to these requests is GRANTED.

RFPD Nos. 17, 19, 30, 35, 38, 41,43, and 44

Each of these RFPD request all documents maintained by Ford with respect to engine defects in vehicles “with 3.5-liter engines like the subject vehicle.” RFPD No. 19 does not specify 3.5-liter engine vehicles, instead requesting all documents maintained by Ford pertaining to any engine defect.

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.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for the production of these documents. The documents Plaintiff seeks concern engine defects affecting similar engines to that in the Subject Vehicle. It is no stretch of the imagination that these documents could tend to prove facts concerning the alleged defect in the Subject Vehicle. However, the Court finds these requests are so vaguely stated as to be overbroad on their face. (See Obregon supra, 67 Cal.App.4^th at 431.) Plaintiff’s RFPDs seek documents related to every Ford model employing a 3.5-liter engine and, in the case of RFPD No. 19, any engine used by Ford at all. Given that Ford manufactures many different models of vehicles and all of them, the number of documents would almost certainly exceed the scope of this litigation.

It is true that evidence regarding other vehicles with similar defects as Plaintiff's could potentially be admissible at trial in a lemon law action, and thus discoverable. (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.) However, Donlen and Doppes concerned evidence which was directly related to vehicles of the same model and year, not generalized requests for defects in any engine utilized by a manufacturer.

The Court finds these RFPD are not reasonably particularized and thus overbroad on their face. As such, the Court DENIES the motion as to these requests.

RFPD Nos. 54, 55, 56, 66, 67 and 71

These requests concern Ford’s warranty and vehicle repurchase policies, including the training of employees and written policies from 2019 to present.

Ford states it produced a number of documents responsive to this request, including Ford’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual, policies and procedures for Ford’s customer relationship center (“CRC”), and Ford’s RAV Policy & Procedure Manual for 2023. Ford states it produced the documents for 2023 as that is when the suit was filed and objects to the production of responsive documents otherwise as impermissibly overbroad.  

Plaintiff argues these requests are highly relevant to their claims under the Song Beverly Act, citing to Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, which held that an evaluation of a manufacturer’s warranty policies is relevant to a jury’s determination of willful violation of Song Beverly. (Jensen supra, 35 Cal.App.4th 112 at 136.)

The Court agrees that Plaintiff has shown good cause for production. These requests are relevant to Plaintiff’s claim that Ford violated the Song Beverly Act by virtue of its insufficient repurchase policies from the years 2019 to current. The Court further finds that Ford’s limitation to the policies as they are in 2023 is insufficient to satisfy this request and their objection that the request is overbroad is without merit.  The Subject Vehicle having been manufactured in 2019, it does not appear overbroad to request documentation regarding Ford’s repurchase procedures at that time. Further, Ford has produced no privilege log or other information identifying documents to which it is asserting the attorney-client privilege.

The Court does find however, that Plaintiff has not shown good cause of RFPD No. 67, which requests information about Ford’s document retention policy for electronic data and communications. The Court does not find Plaintiff has established this information would be relevant to any cause of action in this case.

While the Court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause for RFPD No. 71, the Court finds this request to be overbroad on its face. RFPD No. 71 requests “[Ford’s] recall policies and procedures.” This request is not limited to any temporal scope nor is it limited to vehicles which suffer similar defects as the Subject Vehicle.

As such the motion to compel further response to RFPD Nos. 54-66 is GRANTED, while the motion to compel further response to RFPD Nos. 67 and 71 are DENIED.

RFPD Nos. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80 and 81

RFPD No. 74, 76, 77, 78 requests all communications with governmental officials involving engine defects in Ford Vehicles. The Court finds these requests overbroad on their face, as they are not limited in time nor to engine defects in models similar to the Subject Vehicle.

RFPD No. 75, 80, and 81 request communications from the supplier of the 3.5-liter engine in Ford Vehicles regarding a defect. The Court similarly finds this request overbroad in that it is not limited in time nor to model similar to the Subject Vehicle.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to these requests is DENIED.

--- 

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 

Gabriel Reuven’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents came on regularly for hearing on December 7, 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 AND DENIED IN PART.

THE MOTION IS GRANTED AS TO RFPD NOS. 1, 3, 12, 15, 54, 56, AND 66.

THE MOTION IS DENIED AS TO RFPD NOS. 17, 19, 30, 35, 38, 41,43, 44, 67, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80 and 81.

FURTHER PRODUCTION IS ORDERED WITHIN 30 DAYS.

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE IS SET FOR MARCH 11, 2024 AT 9:00 A.M.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: December 7, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles