Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 21STCV00971, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

This action arises out of the lease of an allegedly defective vehicle that was manufactured by Defendant. The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges multiple violations of the Song-Beverly Act, fraud by omission, and negligent repair.

On June 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Requests for Production (“RFP”), Set Two deposition (the “Motion”).

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2017.010, unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.010.) For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (CCP § 2031.310, subd. (c).) A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See CCP § 2031.310 subd. (b)(1).) The good cause requirement is met if the proponent shows that there exists “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.” (Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.020, subd. (a).) Generally, objections on the ground of burden require the objecting party to produce evidence of: (1) the propounding party’s subjective intent to create burden; or (2) the amount of time and effort it would take to actually respond. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) Where discovery is obviously overbroad on its face, no such evidence is necessary. (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.) Trial courts are vested with “wide discretion” to allow or prohibit discovery. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

Plaintiff served the RFPs on March 1, 2023. (Declaration of Jami I. Littles (“Littles Decl.”) ¶ 21, Exhibit 6.) Defendant served its responses on April 4, 2023 and provided verifications on May 3, 2023. (Littles Decl. ¶ 23.) The RFPs at issue in the Motion concern documents regarding transmission defects in other cars manufactured by Moving Defendant, and files that Moving Defendant has produced in an ongoing class action lawsuit.

Although Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for the production of documents regarding defects in other vehicles, the Court finds that the RFPs are overly broad. The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion in part and orders Defendant to provide supplemental responses that include the following documents (to the extent that such documents have not already been produced):

1. Warranty policy and procedure manuals or similar policies or claim handling procedures that Defendant published from the date the Vehicle was purchased to the date the lawsuit was filed;

2. Written statements of policy and/or procedures Defendant used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase or replacement for lemon law claims from the date the Vehicle was purchased to the date the lawsuit was filed;

3. A list or compilation of customer complaints in Defendant’s electronically stored info database that are substantially similar to the alleged defects claimed by Plaintiff (same nature of reported symptom, malfunction, dashboard indicator light, or other manifestation of a repair problem, other than routine or scheduled maintenance items), in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the Vehicle. This list or compilation shall include the VIN, date of repair visit, dealership or other reporting location, and text of other customers’ reported complaints, but shall not include customer names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, or other personal identifying information;

4. TSBs and recall notices for vehicles purchased or leased in CA for same year, make, and model of the Vehicle; and

5. Copies of any repair instruction bulletin or diagnostic/repair procedure identified in any of the repair orders.

Defendant’s supplemental responses are to be provided within 20 days of the date of this order.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court