Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV17147, Date: 2024-05-29 Tentative Ruling

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition or reply papers were filed.

On July 21, 2023, Plaintiffs Greisyle Parada and Bryan Andrew Carrillo filed a complaint for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act against Hyundai Motor America. Plaintiffs alleged causes of action for: (1) violation of Civil Code §1793.2(d); (2) violation of Civil Code §1793.2(b); (3) violation of Civil Code §1793.2(a)(3); (4) violation of breach of express warranty (Civil Code §1791.2(a); 1794); and (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (Civil Code §§1791.1 and 1794).

Plaintiffs submit a meet and confer declaration as required under CCP §§2016.040 and 2031.310(b)(2). Plaintiffs corresponded with Defendant regarding the discovery responses but the parties were unable to reach an agreement. (Bedwan Dec., ¶¶16-25.) In its meet and confer correspondence, Defendant indicated it would be filing a Motion to Compel Arbitration and argued discovery should not be discussed until after it was heard. Defendant has not filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and there is no such motion on calendar.

The Song Beverly Act is a remedial measure intended for protection of consumers and should be given a construction consistent with that purpose. To succeed on a claim brought under the Act, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, several elements, including nonconformity of a vehicle that substantially impaired its use, value or safety; presentation of vehicle to manufacturer or authorized representative for repair; and failure to repair the defect after a reasonable number of attempts. (Ibrahim v. Ford Motor Co. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 878, 886-887.) A buyer may also 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. C. §1794(c).)

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. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.

A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.

A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.

(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(3) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.

(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.

… (h) Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996, 2nd Dist.) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)

“Relevant evidence is defined in Evidence Code section 210 as evidence ‘having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.’ The test of relevance is whether the evidence tends logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference to establish material facts. The trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence, but lacks discretion to admit irrelevant evidence.” (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 148 (evidence of post-warranty repairs relevant to action based on warranty repairs because they could demonstrate that vehicle was not repaired to conform to warranty during warranty period.)

In Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, plaintiff alleged violation of the Song Beverly Act based on the defendants’ failure to repair, repurchase, or replace a Bentley that had an obnoxious odor in the interior. (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at 971.). The following discovery requests were deemed “highly relevant” and failure to readily produce them prior to trial should have resulted in terminating sanctions:

“all documents relating to (1) customer complaints concerning the rust inhibitor used on the 2002 Bentley Arnage; (2) all notices to Bentley dealers for the period 2001 to date concerning the rust inhibitor used on the Bentley Arnage; (3) all warranty repairs during the period of January 2002 to date of the Bentley Arnage related to the rust inhibitor used on the vehicle; (4) all customer complaints of a wax oil smell caused by the rust inhibitor on the 2002 Bentley Arnage; and (5) vehicle tests conducted on the 2002 model year Arnage to confirm whether there was a wax oil smell arising from the vehicle's rust inhibitor.”

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to Requests for Production (“RFPs”) Nos. 16-21. Defendant objected to each of the RFPs on the ground that they were overinclusive. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ claims are limited to their own specific vehicle and discovery into other vehicles is irrelevant.

Plaintiffs establish good cause for further responses. Plaintiffs’ RFPs seek production of documents relating to the “Powertrain Defect” allegedly present in their vehicle. Plaintiffs seek documents relating to that defect as it was present in vehicles of the same, year, make and model. As Plaintiffs explain, whether the defect was present in other vehicles of the same year, make and model and whether there were bulletins, customer complaints and internal communications about this defect is relevant to Defendant’s knowledge of the defect, Defendant’s ability to cure the defect, whether Defendant undertook reasonable investigations as to whether the defect could be cured and if so how. Defendant’s knowledge of these issues is relevant to the civil penalties available under the Song Beverly Act, as well as whether Defendant undertook reasonable efforts to cure the defect.

Having established good cause for further production, the burden therefore shifts to Defendant to justify its objections as meritorious. Defendant did not file an opposition.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFP is GRANTED in that Defendant is ordered to serve further, complete, Code-compliant, verified responses to the RFPs within 20 days of the date of this Order. Although the motion requests that the objections in the original responses be stricken, the Court has no authority to do so, and therefore the objections stand, although Defendant is ordered to provide substantive responses to the RFPs, together with all responsive documents. Plaintiffs did not request sanctions and, as such, no sanctions are ordered.

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