Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV01486, Date: 2024-08-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV01486 Hearing Date: August 12, 2024 Dept: F43
Dept. F43
Date: 8-12-24
Case #23CHCV01486 , Olimpia Aguilar, et al. vs. American Honda
Motor Co., Inc.
Trial Date: 8-18-25
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs
Olimpia Aguilar and Fernando Aguilar Guzman
RESPONDING
PARTY: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Defendant’s
further responses to Plaintiffs’ requests for production, as well as sanctions.
RULING:
Motion to compel further responses is denied.
SUMMARY OF
ACTION
Plaintiffs Olimpia
Aguilar and Fernando Aguilar Guzman (Plaintiffs) filed this lemon law case
against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc., (Defendant) on May 23, 2023.
The Requests
for Production at issue are Request Nos. 18 and 45-46. Plaintiffs indicated in
their reply that they have accepted Defendant’s further response to Request No.
18, which Defendant served on Plaintiffs after Plaintiffs had filed this motion.
Accordingly, the Court need only address Requests Nos. 45-46.
Request for
Production No. 45:
All DOCUMENTS
evidencing complaints by owners of the 2019 Honda ACCORD vehicle regarding any
of the complaints that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented to YOUR or YOUR
authorized repair facilities for repair during the warranty period.
Response to
Request for Production No. 45:
AHM objects to
this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and as
asking for information that is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. AHM further objects to the extent
this request asks AHM to respond on behalf of any other entity. Subject to and
without waiving these objections, as Plaintiffs were notified of, but did not
pursue AHM's third-party dispute resolution process, this request is not
relevant and not applicable. However, pursuant to a diligent search and
reasonable inquiry, AHM has no documents responsive to this request and no
responsive documents have ever existed.
Request for
Production No. 46:
All DOCUMENTS
evidencing warranty repairs to 2019 Honda ACCORD vehicles regarding any of the
components that YOU or YOUR authorized repair facilities performed repairs on
under warranty.
Response to
Request for Production No. 46:
AHM objects to
this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing,
and as asking for information that is not relevant and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and it misrepresents
and/or does not take into consideration the statutory construct of the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated to alleged complaints by owners of
2019 Honda Accord vehicles. This case concerns whether Plaintiffs are entitled
to a remedy under the facts of this case. See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.
Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216. Moreover, as phrased, the request
fails to describe with reasonable particularity the documents or categories of
documents being requested, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure, Section
2031.030(c)(1). Moreover, as phrased, this request asks for information
concerning complaints involving different allegations and circumstances,
different consumers, with different use and repair histories, and other
circumstances that are separate and distinct from the alleged facts and
circumstances of this case. AHM objects to the extent this request asks for
information that is protected by the right to privacy. In addition, AHM objects
to this request as calling for information that is confidential, commercially
sensitive, and proprietary or trade secret. AHM further objects to the extent
this request asks AHM to respond on behalf of any other entity.
The Parties’ Arguments
In their
motion, Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to an order compelling further,
code-compliant responses and that the discovery sought is relevant to their
Song-Beverly claims. They also argue that Defendant’s objections lack merit and
do not comply with the CCP. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant should be
sanctioned in the amount of $1,535.
Defendant
argues in its opposition that Plaintiffs’ requests are overly broad and seek
information about alleged nonconformities which are not actionable under
Song-Beverly. Defendant also argues that information about other vehicles is
irrelevant to proving that the subject vehicle exhibited certain
nonconformities and that Plaintiffs’ assertions that they need this information
is unfounded. Finally, Defendant argues that the request for sanctions is
unwarranted and that the Court should impose sanctions for abuse of the
discovery process.
Plaintiffs
argue in their reply that Defendant has failed to show any evidence of undue
burden or expense and that Plaintiffs’ Request Nos. 45 and 46 are relevant and
supported by California law. Plaintiffs also argue that they have set forth
specific facts showing good cause for the discovery. Finally, they argue that
sanctions should be imposed on Defendant.
ANALYSIS
CCP § 2017.010
allows discovery relevant to the subject-matter of the lawsuit or reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Information should
be regarded as relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the
case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Superior
Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)
A party must
respond to a request for production with (1) an agreement to comply; (2) a representation
that the party lacks the ability to comply with a particular demand; or (3) an
objection to all or part of the demand. (CCP § 2031.210(a).) CCP § 2031.240
states that two requirements must be satisfied for a responding party to
properly object to a demand. First, Defendant must “[i]dentify with
particularity any document, tangible thing… to which an objection is being
made.” (CCP § 2031.240(b)(1).) Second, Defendant must “[s]et forth clearly the
extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.” (CCP § 2031.240(b)(2).)
Plaintiffs
argue that Defendant’s objections to the two requests for production at issue are
not sufficient. However, Defendant clearly objects to Request Nos. 45 and 46 on
the basis that they are overly broad, irrelevant, not likely to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, and the requests ask Defendant to respond on
behalf of other entities.
For both
requests, Plaintiffs ask Defendant to provide information on complaints and
warranty repairs related to all 2019 Honda Accord vehicles. This goes far
beyond the scope of a normal Song-Beverly action, including this one, which
only deals with Plaintiffs’ specific vehicle. Therefore, Request Nos. 45 and 46
are overly broad, irrelevant, and go beyond the scope of discoverable evidence.
For Request No. 45, the Court refers the parties to the Lemon Law Discovery
Order posted on the Court’s website. Paragraph 2(h) of that order deals customer
complaints of a substantially similar nature for vehicles of the same year,
make, and model. Discovery for Request No. 45 should be restricted pursuant to
the Court’s Lemon Law Discovery Order. The parties are ordered to read the
discovery order and proceed accordingly.
Plaintiffs’
motion is denied for Request No. 46. For Request No.
45, the parties are ordered to review the Court’s Lemon Law Discovery Order,
and discovery for Request No. 45 is restricted based on that order.
Sanctions
CCP § 2023.030
allows the Court to impose a monetary sanction on any party that misuses the
discovery process. CCP § 2031.300(c) allows the Court to impose a monetary
sanction on any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel
responses to requests for production, unless it finds that the party acted with
substantial justification.
While Defendant
acted with substantial justification in opposing this motion for Request Nos.
45 and 46, the filing of the motion made Defendant supplement its response to
Request No. 18. The motion was justified to the extent that Defendant had not
otherwise supplemented this response prior to the filing of the motion.
Plaintiffs have
requested $1,535 in sanctions. Because the motion was denied for one of the
requests and the other is being modified, the Court will only award $500 for
Plaintiffs having to bring the motion in order for Defendant to supplement Request
No. 18 and to modify Request No. 45.
Plaintiffs’ request
for sanctions is granted in the amount of $500.
ORDER
1. Plaintiffs’
motion to compel further responses is denied for Request No. 46. For Request
No. 45, the parties are ordered to review the Court’s Lemon Law Discovery
Order, and discovery for Request No. 45 is restricted based on that order.
2. Defendant
and its attorneys of record are ordered to pay $500 in sanctions for Plaintiffs
having to bring this motion in order to get a supplemental response to Request
No. 18. Defendant and its attorneys of record are ordered to pay these
sanctions to Plaintiffs’ counsel within 30 days.
3. Moving
party to give notice.