Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV16138, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16138    Hearing Date: August 14, 2023    Dept: 61

I.                MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER – PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

“A party may demand that any other party produce . . . a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010(b).) The demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).) “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand,” and “[t]he motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b).)

A motion to compel a further response to an inspection demand must set forth specific facts showing “good cause” justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1); Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 444.) Once the moving party demonstrates good cause for the discovery, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully respond to the inspection demand.  (Coy v Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220.)

This court on August 24, 2022, granted in part Plaintiff Armando Torres’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents from Defendant Honda Motor Co., specifically as to Requests No. 20–22 and 29–31, which sought documents and communications related to specified defects in the transmission and electrical system for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle in this case. Defendant had responded to these requests with statements of partial compliance, subject to objections based largely on overbreadth.

After Defendant provided supplemental discovery, Plaintiff brought a motion to compel compliance with this court’s prior discovery order, which this court granted in part on March 9, 2023. The court directed Defendant to search for responsive emails to Requests for Production No. 21, 22, 30, and 31, and not limit responsive documents to California. The court directed Defendant to redact the personal identifying information of any consumers contained in the documents to be produced.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant has failed to produce any new documents, and has not provided any new responses since the March 9, 2023 order. (Ringstad Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $4,250.00, representing a discounted 11 hours of attorney work at the rate of $425 per hour. (Ringstad Decl. ¶¶ 10–11.)

Defendant in opposition contends that on July 31, 2023, the date it served its opposition to the present motion, it served supplemental responses to the requests at issue as directed in this court’s order of March 9, 2023. (LaCour Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. B.)

Plaintiff in reply contends that the supplemental responses indicate only that a search for responsive documents is ongoing, and that Defendant’s proposed database search implies a “block” search only for documents containing all of the symptoms listed in Plaintiff’s definition of a transmission defect, rather than conducting different searches for different symptoms. (Reply at pp. 4–5.)

Plaintiff is correct that supplemental responses pursuant to this court’s prior order have been delayed, and indeed have only been served with the opposition to the present motion. What’s more, Defendant’s responses to Requests No. 20–22 and 29–31, has promised only forthcoming searches for emails responsive to the requests at issue. It is doubtful that further responses would be forthcoming absent the filing of this motion, and Plaintiff is entitled to sanctions for failing to comply with this court’s earlier order within a timely fashion, particularly given Plaintiff’s prior attempts to meet and confer regarding the status of the discovery. (Ringstad Decl. ¶ 5.)

It is not apparent from the supplemental responses, however, that Defendant is necessarily using “block” search terms to conduct discovery. Defendant’s responses indicate that it will conduct searches as follows:

AHM is searching for and will produce all Customer Retention and Resolution System Reports and Tech Line Contact reports (redacted to protect the privacy of third parties) regarding 2018 Honda Odyssey with 9-speed transmission owner/lessee concerns, nationwide, for same "TRANSMISSION DEFECT" as that term is defined by Plaintiff using the search terms from that definition including "clunking noise," "surging RPMs," "hesitation," "delayed acceleration," "harsh shifting," "hard shifting," "jerking," and "reprogramming of the transmission control module (TCM)" and all nationwide warranty claims (in spreadsheet format) for Part No. 28101-5NZ-A00 (19-124).

(Opposition Exh. B.) While such a response is arguably susceptible to the interpretation that Defendant is searching only for those documents containing each and every one of the relevant search terms, it is not necessarily read in this way. Plaintiff asks this court to direct Defendant to conduct searches according to specific keywords in particular databases, to direct Defendant to meet and confer regarding the search terms they are using, and to have Defendant’s counsel file a declaration verifying the precise method of discovery used to respond to the requests. (Reply at pp. 6–10.) But Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for these remedies. In any case, Defendant is directed, when conducting searches related to the transmission defect or electrical defect, to conduct a separate search for each of the search terms from the definitions described in their supplemental responses.

The motion is GRANTED. Sanctions are awarded against Defendant in the amount of $_______.