Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV03771, Date: 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03771    Hearing Date: October 10, 2022    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Jacqueline Rubio’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production from Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. is GRANTED as to Request for Production No. 5, and is otherwise DENIED.

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.)

Plaintiff Jacqueline Rubio moves to compel further responses from Defendant Nissan North America to Reqeusts for Production No. 5 and 37–81. Request No. 5 seeks “all warranty documents applicable to the subject vehicle,” to which Defendant offered a statement of compliance, with assurance that it would produce a “service manual” among its production. (Separate Statement at p. 2.) Requests No. 37–81, meanwhile, ask for consumer complaints regarding the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle as to specified problems contained in the subject vehicle’s repair history, to which Defendant offered only objections.

Defendant in opposition argues that there were inadequate meet-and-confer efforts preceding the motion as to Requests No. 37–81, and that there is no good cause to seek documents related to other consumer complaints because Defendant has confirmed that it performed no “buy-back” investigation, meaning that its investigation related to other consumers is not relevant. (Opposition at p. 2.)

Plaintiff in reply withdraws its motion as to Requests No. 37–81, as the dispute over this motion has evidently been resolved by meet-and-confer efforts. (Reply at p. 1.) Plaintiff maintains the motion only as to Request No. 5, because although Defendant has promised to produce the service manual, it has not done so. (Reply at p. 2; Quinn Decl. ¶ 15.)

Relief is proper as to Request No. 5, since Defendant has promised to produce the service manual as a responsive document, but has not done so. No relief is proper as to Requests No. 37–81, as the motion is being withdrawn as to these requests. Defendant in opposition makes no argument as to why it has not produced the service manual.

The motion is therefore GRANTED as to Request No. 5, and is otherwise DENIED.