Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV04259, Date: 2025-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV04259    Hearing Date: May 6, 2025    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 05-06-25

Case # 24CHCV04259, Mkrtchyan v. FCA US, LLC

Trial Date: None set.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Anush Mkrtchyan

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant FCA US, LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order compelling further responses to plaintiff’s first set of requests for production numbers 45 and 46 and awarding $2,822.50 in monetary sanctions.

RULING: The hearing is continued for the parties to meet and confer and prepare a joint statement of remaining issues for the court.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On November 5, 2022, plaintiff Anush Mkrtchyan (Plaintiff) leased a new 2023 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited and entered into a warranty agreement with defendant FCA US, LLC.  There were defects in the vehicle, and the defects make the vehicle unsafe.  Plaintiff filed this lemon law case against defendants FCA US, LLC (Defendant) and FAB4, LLC dba Van Nuys Chrysler Dodge Jeep RAM alleging that Defendant breached express and implied warranties and that defendant FAB4, LLC negligently repaired Plaintiff’s vehicle. 

On January 13, 2025, Plaintiff propounded their first set of requests for production (RFP) on Defendant.  (Declaration of Armando Lopez, ¶ 3, Exh. A.)  Defendant served unverified responses on February 18, 2025.  (Lopez Dec., ¶ 4, Exh. B.)  On February 26, 2025, Plaintiff emailed Defendant about its deficient responses, asked for further responses by March 14, 2025, and requested that Defendant agree to a motion to compel deadline of April 4, 2025 because verifications were not been served.  (Lopez Dec., ¶ 5, Exh. C.)  Defendant served its verifications and document production on March 20, 2025, but never responded to Plaintiff’s email.  (Lopez Dec., ¶¶ 4-5; Declaration of Michael D. Smith, ¶ 7, Exh. 4.)

On April 4, 2025, Plaintiff moved for further responses to RFP numbers 45 and 46 and for $2,822.50 in sanctions.  Defendant opposes, and Plaintiff filed a reply.

MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve issues outside court.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)  In Department F43, meet and confer means in person or via phone.  A letter or email does not suffice.  (Department F43 Courtroom Information, p. 2.)

The supporting declarations indicate that the parties have not met and conferred according to the court’s Song-Beverly Litigation Discovery Order.  Plaintiff’s counsel claims that he emailed a meet and confer letter to defense counsel on February 26, 2025 but did not follow up with a phone call or in person meeting.  (Lopez Dec., ¶ 5, Exh. C.)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff argues that the information they seek—similar complaints and warranty repairs for 2023 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited vehicles—is relevant to proving whether the alleged defects existed in Plaintiff’s vehicle before Plaintiff’s purchase.  Information about other similar vehicle complaints are relevant to refuting Defendant’s affirmative defenses that Plaintiff misused or abused the vehicle or engaged in unauthorized or reasonable use.  The requested documents will lead to evidence concerning Defendant’s handling of consumer complaints and whether Defendant willfully violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  Defendant’s objections fail to identify the documents that it is withholding.  The court should strike Defendant’s “vague, ambiguous, and overly broad” objections because the RFPs are narrowly tailored to a specific subject matter—warranty repairs and customer complaints for the alleged defect in vehicles of the same make, model, and year as Plaintiff’s vehicle.  The court should impose $2,822.50 in monetary sanctions for Plaintiff having to bring this motion.

Defendant opposes, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to meet and confer in person or by phone.  Defendant’s objections are proper because RFP numbers 45 and 46 are facially overbroad.  Plaintiff does not establish good cause for compelling production of documents related to thousands of vehicles nationwide.  Further, Defendant produced more than 1,200 pages of responsive documents on March 20, 2025: warranty claim records, service contract claim records, repair orders, a Repair Order Detail Report, Vehicle Information Detail Report, the lease agreement, Customer Assistance Inquiry Records (CAIRs), the Monroney Label, owner’s manual, warranty booklet, sales brochure, relevant Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs), and documents related to FCA US’s participation in the California Arbitration Certification Program.  (Smith Dec., ¶ 7, Exh. 4.)  The court should deny sanctions because Defendant produced documents, properly objected to the RFPs, and Plaintiff failed to meet and confer according to the court’s discovery order.

Plaintiff replies, asserting that they made a good faith and reasonable attempt to meet and confer in writing, and Defendant did not respond.  The RFPs are reasonably particularized to seek specific documents evidencing (1) customer complaints and warranty repairs (2) for a specific model year vehicle (3) regarding those repairs that Defendant’s repair facilities performed on Plaintiff’s vehicle (4) during the warranty period.  The RFPs are narrowly tailored by the subject matter.  The court should award sanctions because Plaintiff was forced to file this motion because Defendant failed to provide supplemental responses and to engage in a meet and confer.

ANALYSIS

Where responses to requests for production of documents have been served but the demanding party believes that 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).) 

The court finds that RFP numbers 45 and 46 fall within Section 2, Category (h) of the court’s Song-Beverly Litigation Discovery Order”

A list or compilation of customer complaints in Defendant’s electronically stored information database that are substantially similar to the alleged defects claimed by 10 plaintiff, in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. A substantially similar customer complaint would be the same nature of reported symptom, malfunction, dashboard indicator light, or other manifestation of a repair problem as the description listed in any work order or repair order for the subject vehicle, other than routine or scheduled maintenance items. The list provided by Defendant may be in the chart or spreadsheet format, and shall include the CIN, date of repair visit, dealership or other reporting location, and the text of the other customers’ reported complaint, but shall not include the other customers’ names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, or other personal identifying information.

(Discovery Order, § 2(h).)

The court’s Discovery Order required the parties to produce these documents at the outset of discovery.  The court has reviewed the letter Defendant sent with its production and finds that the letter does not include items which must be produced according to the Court’s Discovery Order.

The court continues the motion hearing and orders the parties to review the Court’s Song-Beverly Litigation Discover Order and to meet and confer in person, by phone, or by video conference.  Further, 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 Plaintiff’s arguments, then Defendant’s arguments.

Accordingly, the court orders the parties to meet and confer directly and to file a joint statement.

CONCLUSION

1.  The parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer.  The parties must meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference.

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 requests 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 continued hearing and joint status report filing dates will be set at the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff Anush Mkrtchyan to give notice.