Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV01489, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV01489 Hearing Date: January 28, 2025 Dept: F43
Dept.
F43
Date:
01-28-25
Case
# 23CHCV01489, Chua, et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc.
Trial
Date: 08-25-25
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
MOVING
PARTIES: Plaintiffs Alex Pe Chua and Katherine A. Chua
RESPONDING
PARTY: Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Order
compelling objection-free responses to Request for Production, Set One numbers
2, 15-21, 30, and 31.
RULING: Motion is
granted, in part, for request numbers 2, 15-21, and 31, and denied, in part,
for request number 30.
SUMMARY
OF ACTION
Plaintiffs
Alex Pe Chua and Katherine A. Chua purchased a 2018 Infiniti QX30, on July 27,
2018. The vehicle began experiencing
mechanical defects, and Plaintiffs sued defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan)
for violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, alleging that Nissan was
unable to repair the defects and did not replace the car or make
restitution. The complaint alleges
causes of action for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and
violations of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b).
On
January 22, 2024, Plaintiffs propounded their Requests for Production (Set One)
on Nissan. Nissan served responses containing
objections and no responsive documents on October 10, 2024. After meeting and conferring, Nissan did not
provide further documents for review.
Plaintiffs
filed this motion to compel further responses to their Request for Production
(Set One) numbers 2, 15-21, 30, and 31 on December 11, 2024. Nissan filed an opposition on January 14,
2025. Plaintiffs filed a reply on
January 17, 2025.
MEET
AND CONFER
Before
filing a motion to compel further responses or responsive documents to requests
for production, the parties must meet and confer to resolve the issues with the
discovery responses. The moving party
must file a “meet and confer” declaration stating facts showing a reasonable
and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue in the
motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310,
subd. (b)(2), 2016.040.) In Department
43, “meet and confer” means in person or via phone, not by letter or
email. (Department F43 Courtroom
Information, at p. 2.)
On
September 4, 2024, Plaintiffs sent Nissan’s counsel a meet and confer
letter. (Declaration of Daniel Gopstein,
¶ 16, Exh. 5.) Nissan’s counsel
responded on September 9, 2024 stating they did not receive the discovery
requests. (Gopstein Dec., ¶ 17, Exh.
6.) On October 28, 2024, Plaintiffs sent
another meet and confer letter detailing issues with Nissan’s objections. (Gopstein Dec., ¶ 18, Exh. 7.)
On
November 4, 2024, Nissan’s counsel responded requesting a telephonic meet and
confer. (Gopstein Dec., ¶ 22, Exh.
8.) Counsel met and conferred
telephonically on November 26, 2024, and Plaintiffs agreed to limit request
numbers 2, 15-21, 30, and 31 to vehicles of the same make model and year and to
review and serve further documents once the Protective Order was signed by the
court. (Gopstein Dec., ¶ 23, Exh.
9.) To date, Nissan has not produced
many documents to Plaintiffs’ requests.
(Gopstein Dec., ¶ 24.)
Nissan
states that Plaintiffs filed this motion without first informing Nissan even
though Plaintiffs were aware Nissan was compiling supplemental production after
the court signed a Protective Order on December 2, 2024. (Declaration of Hang Alexandra Do, ¶
17.) On December 16, 2024, five days after
Plaintiffs filed their motion, Nissan served its supplemental document
production, including SOP 2.9 Case Ownership and CA SOP 3.19 Repair History
Review (RHR) Request, on Plaintiffs. (Do
Dec., ¶ 18, Exh. 9.)
SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENTS
Plaintiffs
argue Nissan’s deficient responses contain boilerplate objections and that
Nissan failed to produce any responsive documents. The information sought for requests numbers
15 through 29 includes relevant documents reflecting Nissan’s written
warranties and policies and procedures related to the warranties, how coverage
is determined, and training related to warranty coverage. Further, the requested information about how
Nissan handles customer complaints and whether Nissan complied with its affirmative
duties to repurchase and replace defective vehicles is relevant to Song-Beverly
cases. Finally, requests 30 and 31 seek
documents related to Nissan’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in
vehicles of the same make, model, and year as Plaintiffs’ vehicle. This information is relevant to determining
whether Nissan knew of the alleged defects and whether Nissan was “willful” in
failing to replace and replace Plaintiffs’ vehicle.
Nissan
opposes arguing that it has provided code-compliant responses and responsive
documents to request numbers 2 and 15-21, that request numbers 30 and 31 exceed
the scope of this case, and that Plaintiffs’ separate statement is deficient
per Rule of Court 3.1345. Requests 30
and 31 are overly broad because they seek all documents related to customer
complaints and any field service action issue in response to complaints. Nissan has already responded to request 31 stating
that there are no applicable field service actions for Plaintiffs’ vehicle.
In
reply, Plaintiffs argue they have established good cause for this motion
because the requested documents relate to Plaintiffs’ vehicle, Nissan’s
warranty and replacement/repair policies and procedures, and Nissan’s knowledge
of the alleged defects in other vehicles of the same make, model, and
year. Nissan’s internal investigation
and analyses of the electrical transmission defects in Plaintiffs’ vehicle are
relevant because they will show the scope of the defects and the Nissan’s
awareness of the defects. Donlen
and Doppes both support production of all documents relating to customer
complaints regarding alleged defects including all notices for a set period
from when the defective item was used on a particular model, all warranty
repairs during a limited period, customer complaints of specific defects, and
tests conducted on the model to confirm whether the alleged defect was causing
the issues which lead to customers’ complaints.
ANALYSIS
Where responses to requests for production of
documents have been served, but the demanding party believes they are deficient
because the statement of compliance is incomplete, the representation of an
inability to comply is inadequate, evasive, or incomplete, or, because an
objection is without merit, that party may move for an order compelling a
further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) The demanding party must serve the motion
within 45 days after service of verified responses in question, or any verified
supplemental responses. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)
Requests 2, 15-21
RFP No. 2: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, support, refer, or
relate to each of the affirmative defenses as set forth in YOUR Answer to
Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
RFP No. 15: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or
relate to YOUR rules, policies, or procedures since 2020 concerning the
issuance of refunds to buyers or providing replacement vehicles to buyers in
the State of California under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
RFP No. 16: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or
relate to YOUR Call Center Policies and Procedures for escalating customer
complaints relating to any defects present in their vehicle.
RFP No. 17: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or
relate to YOUR Call Center Policies and Procedures for creating a Service
Activity in response to customer complaints relating to any defects present in
their vehicle.
RFP No. 18: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or
relate to YOUR Policies and Procedures for determining whether a vehicle should
be repurchased or replaced under the Song-Beverly Act.
RFP No. 19: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or
relate to any flow charts used by YOU for the purpose of escalating customer
complaints.
RFP No. 20: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or
relate to any flow charts used by YOU for the purpose of evaluating whether a
vehicle qualifies for repurchase or replacement under the Song-Beverly Act.
RFP No. 21: “All DOCUMENTS evidencing and/or describing YOUR
training materials related to YOUR policy regarding how to calculate a
repurchase.”
Nissan’s responses and responsive
documents to requests 2 and 15-21 were proper.
Nissan’s initial responses included objections and a list of responsive
documents, bates numbers, and the relevant request for production number. After the parties met and conferred and the Court
signed Nissan’s protective order, Nissan served the documents listed in its
original response (Owner’s Manual, Warranty Information Booklet, Voluntary
Safety Recall Campaign 2017-2018, Clock Spring Cable Voluntary Safety Recall
Campaign, and Owner Manual Addendum Voluntary Safety Recall Campaign) and two
more responsive documents (CA SOP 2.9: Case Ownership and CA SOP 3.19 Repair
History Review (RHR) Request) to request numbers 2 and 15-21. These documents outline Nissan’s confidential
internal operating processes and procedures.
The Court finds these documents are responsive to requests 2 and 15-21
and comply with Court’s Song-Beverly Discovery Litigation Order. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs’
request to compel further responses to request numbers 2 and 15-21.
Requests 30 and 31
RFP No. 30: “All DOCUMENTS, in the form of a list or
compilation, of other Customer Complaints in YOUR electronically stored
information of database(s) that are SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR to complaints made by
Plaintiff with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE in other 2018 Infiniti QX30,
having vehicles.
“SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR” shall mean
similar customer complaint that would be the same nature of the reported
system, malfunction, trouble code, Technical Service Bulletin Recommendation,
dashboard indicator light, or other manifestation of a repair problem, as
description listed in any warranty summary or repair order for the SUBJECT
VEHICLE. [The customer complaints in this matter can be found in Defendant’s
warranty history/summary and within the line items of the repair orders created
at Defendant’s authorized repair facility. If YOU are having issues determining
Plaintiffs’ Complaints, Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer and list out
the specific complaints and the language used to describe them. This should not
include any routine or scheduled maintenance items.]”
Nissan’s Response: Nissan objects to this request as vague and
ambiguous, seeking confidential and private information of non-party
individuals, unduly burdensome, overly broad in time and in scope, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Additionally, the likely burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs
the likely benefit, taking into account the amount in controversy, the
resources of the parties, the importance of the issues in the litigation, and
the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues.
Additionally, this request seeks information that may be confidential and
proprietary. Nissan further objects to this request as Plaintiffs have made no
attempt to narrow it to the facts of this case. Specifically, whether
Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act,
or any other applicable law, is entirely unrelated to vehicle repurchases of
other vehicles.
RFP No. 31: “All DOCUMENTS that refer to, reflect, or relate to
any Field Service Action issued, or in the process of being issued, in response
to complaints experienced by Plaintiff as described in Defendant’s warranty
history/summary and within the line items of the repair orders created at
Defendant’s authorized repair facility.”
Nissan’s Response: “Nissan objects to this request to the extent that
it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad as to both time and scope, burdensome,
oppressive, compound, intrusive of the privacy rights of third persons and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relating
to the subject vehicle. Nissan further
objects to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary, confidential trade
secret information. This request also
violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53
Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically,
whether Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act is entirely unrelated to service or repairs on other vehicles of
the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Without waiving these objections, there are no
applicable field service actions that relate to the subject vehicle. Nissan’s investigation and discovery are
continuing.”
The Court finds that Nissan’s response to
request 30 is without merit because this Court requires that the requested
information be provided to the opposing party per section 2, paragraph (h) of
the Department F-43 Song-Beverly Litigation Discovery. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs’
request to compel further response to request number 30 as limited by the
Court’s discovery order.
Although Nissan’s response to request 31
is code-compliant, Nissan’s objections lack merit because the request limits
the documents requested to complaints experienced by “Plaintiff’s vehicle.” However, Nissan’s response stating there are
no applicable field service actions relating to Plaintiffs’ vehicle is a
sufficient response. Therefore, the
Court denies Plaintiffs’ request to compel further response to request number
31.
Finally, the court notes that Plaintiffs’
separate statement is deficient because several of Plaintiffs’ reasons for a
further response incorporate reasons by reference to Plaintiffs’ arguments for
request number 15. (See Plaintiff’s
Separate Statement, at pp. 19-23.) The
separate statement must set forth a “separate listing of the information sought
and the reasons the information was relevant” in order for the court to
properly rule on each matter. (Neary
v. Regents of University of California (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1145; see
also Cal. Rule of Court, rule 3.1345(c)(5).)
Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request for
further response to request number 30, as limited by the Department F-43
Song-Beverly Litigation Discovery Order, and denies Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel further responses to request numbers 2, 15-21, and 31.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to
Requests for Production, Set One is granted, in part for request numbers 2,
15-21 and 31, and denied, in part for request number 30.
1. Nissan is
order to provide further response and responsive documents to request number
30, as limited by the Department F-43 Song-Beverly Litigation Discovery Order,
within forty-five (45) days of the date of this order.
Plaintiffs to give notice.