Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV01335, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV01335    Hearing Date: November 19, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 11-19-24

Case # 23CHCV01335, David Griffiths, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Trial Date: 11-23-25

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs David Griffiths and Carolyn Griffiths

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant American Motor Company, Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Further responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 7, 8, 19-23, 27, and 28.

RULING: Parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On May 5, 2023, Plaintiffs David Griffiths and Carolyn Griffiths (Plaintiffs) filed this Song-Beverly action against Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (Defendant). Plaintiffs allege Defendant failed to repair Plaintiffs’ 2020 Honda Pilot vehicle and its various defects.

Plaintiffs propounded Special Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant on May 1, 2024. On May 31, 2024, Defendant served their initial responses.

After receiving Defendant’s initial responses, Plaintiffs sent Defendant a meet and confer letter regarding Defendant’s objections and responses. (Declaration of Diana Rivero [Rivero Decl.], ¶ 16, Exh. 11.)

On July 15, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, Diana Rivero, emailed and called opposing counsel to set a time to meet and confer telephonically. (Rivero Decl., Exh. 14, at p. 2.) On July 17, 2024, opposing counsel, Kevin Zipser, emailed Rivero to set up a time to meet and confer. (Rivero Decl., Exh. 14, at p. 1.) Counsel met and conferred on July 18, 2024, and Rivero sent Zipser an email confirming that Defendant would provide supplemental responses within two days. (Rivero Decl., Exh. 16, at p. 1.) In this same email, Rivero informed Zipser she would be out of the office from July 19, 2024 through July 26, 2024. (Ibid.)

Defendant served supplemental responses on July 18, 2024. (Rivero Decl., Exh. 17, at p. 17.) Defendant did not address special interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, 19-23, 27, and 28 in its supplemental responses.

On August 14, 2024, Rivero emailed Zipser noting that Defendant’s supplemental responses were missing responses to special interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, 19-2, and 27-29. (Rivero Decl., Exh. 19, at p. 1.) Rivero also asked Zipser to stipulate to extending the deadline for moving to compel these further responses to August 19, 2024. (Ibid.) On August 15, 2024, Rivero emailed Zipser and left a voicemail requesting that Zipser follow up on her August 14th email. (Rivero Decl., Exh. 20, at p. 1.) Zipser did not respond. On August 16, 2024, emailed and left a voicemail for Zipser again. (Rivero Decl., Exh. 21.) Zipser again did not respond.

On August 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel further responses to the special interrogatories. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s responses to special interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, 19-23, 27, and 28 were inadequate due to Defendant’s boilerplate objections.

On November 5, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ separate statement. Defendant argues that it provided code compliant responses which included objections to each individual special interrogatory. Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs’ special interrogatories are vague, overly broad, and irrelevant because they seek information beyond the scope of this case.

Plaintiffs filed a reply on November 12, 2024. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant failed to meet its burden of providing facts which show its objections are valid.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs argue the information sought by the interrogatories is discoverable because “it will establish that (1) Defendant was aware that the Electrical Defect is a commonly observed problem plaguing 2020 Honda Pilot vehicles, (2) Defendant could not repair the Electrical Defect regardless of the number of repair opportunities afforded, and (3) Defendant knew (or should have known) that the defect was not repaired when Defendant failed to promptly repurchase Plaintiffs’ vehicle prior to the commencement of this lawsuit, which is relevant to Defendant’s liability for civil penalties under Civ. Code § 1794 subd. (c).” (Motion, p. 1:17-23.)

Plaintiffs state they “seek information concerning Defendant’s (1) internal investigation and analysis of the Electrical Defect plaguing Plaintiffs’ vehicle – establishing Defendant’s awareness of said defect, knowledge that it could not repair the vehicle regardless of the number of repair attempts afforded, and failure to repurchase Plaintiffs’ vehicle notwithstanding this knowledge (See, Special Interrogatory Nos. 19-23, 27, and 28); and (2) Song-Beverly Act policies, procedures, and practices (See, Special Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, and 23).” (Motion, p. 1:11-16.) Plaintiffs allege they attempted to resolve this discovery dispute but has been unsuccessful because Defendant has been unresponsive to Plaintiffs’ meet and confer efforts.

In opposition, Defendant reiterates its same objections and argues that Plaintiffs mischaracterizes its objections which are code compliant responses. Defendant insists that Plaintiffs seek information beyond the scope of this case because Plaintiffs only need to prove the subject vehicle had a nonconformity, the Plaintiffs presented the vehicle to an authorized representative of the vehicle manufacturer, and the manufacturer or his representative did not repair the nonconformity after a reasonable number of attempts. Plaintiffs’ requests seek information about procedures and bulletins which are completely irrelevant to this case.

The following is an example of one of the responses at issue:

Special Interrogatory Number 28

Please IDENTIFY all databases maintained by YOU or on YOUR behalf containing electronically stored information relating to YOUR efforts (or efforts on YOUR behalf) to investigate, diagnose, assess, determine, modify, repair, and/or evaluate the ELECTRICAL DEFECT in vehicles of the same make, model, and year as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [For purposes of this interrogatory, the term “IDENTIFY” shall be interpreted to mean identification of the name of the database, the location of the database, and the custodians of such database, and the manner in which the database may be searched.]

Response

AHM objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, and as asking for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it is not directed to any claim, defense, and/or any other matter at issue in this litigation, rather it is directed to the manner in which AHM stores information. As phrased, the interrogatory is directed to discovery on discovery and the manner in which AHM stores, collects, or reviews information, and is not directed to assisting in evaluating this case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546; Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.) AHM objects to this interrogatory because it is directed to the cause, or related information, of purported defects on the grounds that Plaintiffs are not required to prove the cause of a purported defect; rather, Plaintiffs are only required to prove the SUBJECT VEHICLE did not conform to its express warranty, and therefore the information sought by this interrogatory is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (See, Oregel v. Am. Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1102, n.8, Donlen v. Ford Motor Co., (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 149-52 and CACI No. 3201.) In addition, AHM objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of the term “ELECTRICAL DEFECT” as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad as it includes at least fourteen vaguely defined symptoms. Moreover, considering Plaintiffs’ definition of the term “ELECTRICAL DEFECT,” the interrogatory contains subparts and is therefore compound, conjunctive, and/or disjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060(f). AHM objects to this interrogatory as calling for information that is confidential, commercially sensitive, and/or proprietary. AHM objects to the extent this interrogatory asks AHM to respond on behalf of any other entity.

ANALYSIS

To compel a further response to interrogatories, the movant must show that: (1) the responding party’s answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) the responding party’s exercise of the option to produce documents in response to an interrogatory was unwarranted or the required specification of those documents was inadequate; and (3) the responding party’s objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a); see, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550 [defendant’s argument that plaintiff was required to establish good cause or prove merits of underlying claim before propounding interrogatories without merit].).

In this case, Defendant’s responses to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories are evasive and incomplete. Defendant’s initial responses were objections. Rather than providing facts supporting each response, Defendant restates many of its objections. After meeting and conferring, Defendant submitted incomplete supplemental responses which omitted special interrogatories 7, 8, 19-23, 27, and 28. Defendant then ignored Plaintiffs’ subsequent meet and confer efforts and attempts to extend the deadline for filing this motion.

The Court has reviewed the documents related to this motion and will not decide the motions on the merits at this time.

The Court orders the parties to review the Court’s Lemon Law Discovery Order and to meet and confer with the Order in mind. The parties must meet and confer directly, not by email, to resolve as much as they can. Additionally, the parties are ordered to file a joint statement of remaining issues by a date to be set by the Court. The joint statement should briefly describe the matters in dispute, followed by Defendant’s arguments, then Plaintiff’s arguments.

ORDER

1. The parties are ordered to review the Court’s Lemon Law Discovery Order and to conduct a meaningful meet and confer with the Order in mind.

2. The parties shall submit a joint statement of the remaining issues as described above. The format should be as follows: the parties should recite the specific discovery request at issue, followed by the moving party’s statement of why it should be compelled, followed by the opposing party’s statement of why it should not be compelled. To the extent that an argument is repeated for a subsequent request, the party shall simply refer to the section where the argument was previously made.

3. The dates for the status report and continued hearings will be set at the hearing on this motion.

Moving parties to give notice.