Judge Gregory Keosian, Case 21STCV09057 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV09057, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV09057 Hearing Date: April 4, 2023 Dept: 61

Plaintiffs James White and Dawn Jamadar’s Motion to Compel Defendant FCA US, LLC to Comply with This Court’s March 21, 2022 Order is GRANTED as to Requests No. 14–16, 25, 35, 38, 74, and 80. Defendant shall serve further responses indicating searches of the Customer Advocate Group Remote Imaging System, the Parts Return Analysis System, the Customer Assistance Inquiry Records, the Mopar Parts System, the Proving Grounds Testing System, and Global Warranty Applications. As to Requests No. 35, 38, and 74, Defendant shall search for emails relating to internal investigations behind TSB 09-002-17. And while Defendant may redact personally identifying information of consumers from its document production, it may not redact information it otherwise believes to be nonresponsive. The motion is DENIED as to Request No. 1.

No sanctions are awarded.

I. MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY ORDER

A party may make a motion compelling a witness’s deposition “after service of a deposition notice” if that witness “fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must include a meet-and-confer declaration and show good cause for the discovery sought. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1), (2).)

Plaintiffs James White and Dawn Jamadar (Plaintiffs) move to compel the compliance of Defendant FCA US, LLC with this court’s order of March 21, 2022, granting in part their motion to compel further as to requests for production No. 1, 14–16, 25, 35, 38, 74, and 80. Defendant served further responses under this order on April 20, 2022. (Smith Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs argue that Defendants responses continue to unilaterally limit the production of documents to those specifically mentioned in the responses, without offering a genuine statement of full compliance. Plaintiffs also argue that Defendant, when describing the databases searched for responsive documents, omits several other databases within its control reasonably likely to yield responsive documents. (Smith Decl. at p. 5.) Plaintiffs also object that Defendant redacted information from the documents it produced on the grounds that the information was nonresponsive. (Separate Statement at p. 15.) Plaintiffs claim that the further responses ordered by the court have yielded no further document production from Defendant. (Smith Decl. ¶¶ 8a–8i.)

Defendant in opposition argues that Plaintiffs have waited several months since its new responses were served on April 20, 20, 2022, and that no further responses should be ordered. (Opposition at pp. 5–6.) Defendant also argues that it’s new responses specifically state that “no responsive documents have been withheld in response to this request.” (Opposition at pp. 6–7.)

The form of Defendant’s responses has improved since this court’s last order. Specifically, Defendant’s responses state that it is complying in full with the requests, and additionally, that no responsive documents are being withheld. Accordingly, no further response is required as to Request No. 1.

However, Plaintiff presents evidence that further responsive documents may exist as to the other requests at issue in this motion. Specifically, Plaintiffs have identified several databases in Defendant’s control potentially containing responsive documents, which are not among the databases that Defendant identifies in its search. (Smith Decl. at p. 5.) Defendant’s opposition to this argument is unconvincing, as it claims to have searched one of the databases identified — Global Warranty Applications (GWA) — but GWA is not listed among the databases listed in its verified responses. (Opposition at p. 8.) The other databases that Defendant identifies as nonresponsive — Proving Ground Testing Information System (PGTIS) and the Parts Return Analysis System (PRAS) — are reasonably likely to contain responsive information related to the defects alleged in the subject vehicle. (Opposition at p. 8.) A further response is necessary, indicating the results of searching the databases identified by Plaintiffs, in order to comply with this court’s prior order.

Further responses are also necessary specifically as to Requests No. 35, 38, and 74, where Defendant specifically promises to provide emails relating to the internal investigation behind Recall V54, but not for TSB 09-002-17, when both are identified in the same responses. (Separate Statement at pp. 32–41.)

Finally, Defendant’s responses indicate that it is redacting documents “to omit nonresponsive and irrelevant information,” as well as “Personally Identifiable Information relative to FCA US consumers.” (See Separate Statement at p. 42.) Such redactions may be appropriate for personally identifying information of other consumers, as such information is not only not relevant, but risks exposing private information. However, Defendant shall not redact otherwise responsive documents merely to prevent the disclosure of information it claims is immaterial.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to Requests No. 14–16, 25, 35, 38, 74, and 80. Defendant shall serve further responses indicating searches of the Customer Advocate Group Remote Imaging System, the Parts Return Analysis System, the Customer Assistance Inquiry Records, the Mopar Parts System, the Proving Grounds Testing System, and Global Warranty Applications. As to Requests No. 35, 38, and 74, Defendant shall search for emails relating to internal investigations behind TSB 09-002-17. And while Defendant may redact personally identifying information of consumers from its document production, it may not redact information it otherwise believes to be nonresponsive. The motion is DENIED as to Request No. 1.

Plaintiff seeks prospective sanctions against Defendant for each day that Defendant does not search for documents, or for each day that documents are not produced. (Motion at p. 16, citing Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 605 [“[T]he court could have imposed a significant monetary penalty for every day Watchtower did not search for the documents or for each day the responsive documents were not produced.”].) No such order is necessary. Plaintiffs waited almost a year before bringing the present motion, and have only obtained partial relief. Thus no sanctions award is warranted.