Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV40161, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV40161    Hearing Date: February 2, 2024    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Oscar Armando Figueroa’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production from Defendant FCA US LLC is GRANTED. Objection free code compliant responses are ordered within 30 days.

Plaintiff Oscar Armando Figueroa’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant FCA US, LLC’s Person Most Qualified is GRANTED.

I.       MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

“A propounding party may demand a responding party to produce documents that are in their possession, custody or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) A party may likewise conduct discovery by propounding interrogatories to another party to be answered under oath. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) The responding party must respond to the production demand either by complying, by representing that the party lacks the ability to comply, or by objecting to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) The responding party must respond to the interrogatories by answering or objecting. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) If the responding party fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the production demand and interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) “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).)

Plaintiff Oscar Armando Figueroa (Plaintiff) moves to compel further responses to requests for production No. 1–7, 16–21, and 48, from Defendant FCA US, LLC. Requests No. 1–7 sought documents related to the subject vehicle’s history and Defendant’s warranty policy, to which Defendant offered statements of compliance. Defendant also offered a statement of compliance to Request No. 48, which sought documents relating to its alternative dispute resolution procedure. However, Plaintiff contends that no documents have been produced. (Sue Decl. ¶ 19.) Requests No. 16–21, meanwhile, sought documents concerning coolant system defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model, including internal analyses, information concerning warranty claims, and failure rates. (Separate Statement.) Defendant responded only with objections.

Plaintiff in the motion contends that Defendant failed to respond to their meet-and-confer efforts. (Sue Decl. ¶¶ 15–20.) Defendant in opposition contends this was the product of inadvertence, and offers that the documents promised have been produced as of January 25, 2024. (Dao Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendant argues that it remains willing to meet and confer on Requests No. 16–21, and “would agree to supplement each of its responses . . . to state its full compliance including the agreement to conduct the requested document searches and produce all responsive documents identified as a result of those searches.” (Opposition at p. 2.)

Good cause supports the documents sought, as they concern Defendant’s knowledge of the defects contained in the subject vehicle, and thus the willfulness of its alleged warranty violations. To succeed on a claim brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving several elements, including nonconformity of a vehicle that substantially impaired its use, value, or safety, presentation of a vehicle to a manufacturer or authorized representative for repair, and failure to repair the defect after a reasonable number of attempts. (Oregel v. Am. Isuzu Motors, Inc. (“Oregel”) (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.)

A buyer may be entitled to a civil penalty of up to two times the actual damages upon a showing that the manufacturer willfully failed to abide by any of its obligations under the Act. (Civ. Code § 1794, subd. (c).) Evidence that a defendant “adopted internal policies that erected hidden obstacles to the ability of an unwary consumer to obtain redress under the Act,” is relevant to a determination of “willfulness” in relation to prayers for the civil penalty. (Oregel, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 1105.)

There is case authority for this proposition. The court in Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 993–994, held that Bentley’s failure to turn over customer complaints regarding defects on other Bentleys to support the plaintiff’s claim under the Song-Beverly Act was an abuse of discovery so flagrant that the trial court abused its discretion by not imposing terminating sanctions. Other cases have embraced a evidentiary rule similar to that only implicit in Doppes. In Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, the trial court allowed an expert to testify that a particular transmission was defective  because he had heard from “others” that the same transmission in “other vehicle[s]” was “problematic.” The Court of Appeal held that the “other vehicle” testimony was properly “limited to the transmission model Ford installed in plaintiff’s truck and other vehicles.”  (Id. at p. 154.)  The court held that “[s]uch evidence certainly was probative and not unduly prejudicial.”  (Ibid.) And in another case, Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5^th 334, 347, the court held that a manufacturer’s internal emails concerning a mechanical defect in a lemon law case were relevant to show that the manufacturer “intentionally chose not to honor the express warranty,” and thus merited civil penalties.

Defendant does not support its objections in opposition, and offers to confer only on the eve of hearing, an offer it greeted with silence when Plaintiff timely made it before filing the present motion. Defendant has shown no basis to defer ruling on the motion.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.

II.    MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

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).)

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable. Plaintiff served the notice of deposition on July 25, 2023, setting the deposition for September 15, 2023. (Sue decl. ¶ 9, Exh. 2.) Defendant served objections on September 8, 2023. (SueDecl. Exh. 3.) Defendant indicated that it was unavailable on the date and time indicated, and that no deponent would be produced. (Ibid.) Plaintiff served meet-and-confer correspondence regarding dates on October 20 and 30, 2023, but to no response. (Sue Decl. ¶¶ 11–12, Exhs. 4, 5.)

Plaintiff has shown entitlement to an order compelling Defendant’s deposition, as a notice was served, Defendant objected to the scheduling, and Plaintiff received no response to subsequent efforts to accommodate Defendant’s objections. Defendant has filed no opposition to this motion to justify its objections.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.  

Plaintiff to give notice.