Judge Gregory Keosian, Case Number: 23STCV06067, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 23STCV06067, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06067 Hearing Date: March 4, 2024 Dept: 61

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 Sandy Solorzano Jerez (Plaintiff) moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production No. 1–31 against Defendant American Honda Motor Co. (Defendant). Plaintiff identifies the following categories of request: (1) Nos. 1–14, which concern the subject vehicle; (2) Nos. 15–29, which concern Defendant’s warranty policies and procedures; and (3) Nos. 30–31, which concern similar customer complaints regarding vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. (Motion at p. 5.) Defendant offered, subject to objections, statements of compliance in response to Requests No. 1–6, 9–11, 13, and 14, and statements of inability to comply to Requests No. 7, 8, 12, 15–29, and 31. Defendant offered only objections to Request No. 30, based on relevance, overbreadth, and privacy, among others.

A further response is required as to Requests No. 1–6, 9–11, 13, and 14, to which Defendant offered statements of compliance “in whole,” and production of “all documents in the requested category . . . to which no objection is being made.” (Separate Statement.) This response complies with the letter of Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.220, which permits statements of production for all documents “to which no objection is being made.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.220.) However, the statutory scheme assumes that all documents being withheld pursuant to objection shall be “identif[ied] with particularity.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (b)(1).) Given Defendant’s offering of objections in conjunction with these statements of compliance, Defendant ought to clarify whether and what documents are being withheld pursuant to these objections. The motion is therefore GRANTED as to Requests No. 1–6, 9–11, 13, and 14.

No further response is required as to Requests No. 7, 8, 12, 15–29, and 31, as Defendant has offered code-compliant statements of inability to comply under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.230. Plaintiff argues that these statements contain no affirmation that a “diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made” to comply with the demand, and that Defendant does not specify whether the documents have been lost, never existed, or how they are otherwise disposed. (Separate Statement at p. 13.) But this characterization of the responses is inaccurate. Each of the responses affirms that they are made following “a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with this request,” and states that no responsive documents have ever existed. (Separate Statement.) The motion is DENIED as to Requests No. 7, 8, 12, 15–29, and 31.

A further response is also required as to Request No. 30. This request sought a list of customer complaints “substantially similar” to the complaints made by Plaintiff with respect to the subject vehicle for vehicles of the same year, make, and model, with “substantially similar” defined by reference to the warranty summary and repair orders for the subject vehicle.

The request is supported by good cause., because it concerns 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 an 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.

However, Defendant is correct that the request for complaints risks turning over personal identifying information for the people who made the complaints. (Opposition at p. 8.) In determining whether disclosure is required [against a privacy objection], the court must indulge in a ‘careful balancing’ of the right of a civil litigant to discover relevant facts, on the one hand, and the right of the third parties to maintain reasonable privacy regarding their sensitive personal affairs, on the other. The court must consider the purpose of the information sought, the effect that disclosure will have on the affected persons and parties, the nature of the objections urged by the party resisting disclosure and availability of alternative, less intrusive means for obtaining the requested information. Based on an application of these factors, the more sensitive the nature of the personal information that is sought to be discovered, the more substantial the showing of the need for the discovery that will be required before disclosure will be permitted.” (Hooser v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 1004, internal citations omitted.) Here, although Plaintiff has good cause for the information sought, Defendant shall redact names and contact information for the individuals identified with the complaints.

The motion is therefore GRANTED as to Requests No. 1–6, 9–11, 13, and 14, to which Defendant must clarify whether and which documents it is withholding pursuant to objections pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.240, and to Request No. 30, although Defendant shall redact names and contact information for the individuals identified with the complaints. The motion is DENIED as to Requests No. 7, 8, 12, 15–29, and 31.