Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23BBCV00526, Date: 2024-05-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23BBCV00526 Hearing Date: May 15, 2024 Dept: X
Tentative
Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X
HEARING DATE: May 15, 2024 TRIAL DATE: No date set.
CASE: Justin Whiter vs. Ford Motor Company, et
al.
CASE NO.: 23BBCV00526
MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MOVING
PARTY: Plaintiff Justin Whiter (“Plaintiff”)
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Ford Motor Company (“FMC”)
SERVICE:
Filed October 31, 2023
OPPOSITION:
Filed February 2, 2024
REPLY:
Filed February 8, 2024
RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff moves for an order
compelling further responses to his requests for production of documents.
BACKGROUND
This case
arises out of Plaintiff Justin Whiter’s lemon law claim for a 2019 Ford Fusion,
Vehicle Identification Number 3FA6P0HD4KR174062 (the “Subject Vehicle”).
Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 7, 2023. Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to his
request for production of documents, set one (the “Motion”) issued to
FMC. Plaintiff does not request sanctions in connection with the Motion.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s Motion to compel further
responses is granted in part. FMC is ordered to produce supplemental
verified, code-compliant responses to the RFPs and produce all responsive
documents which are not part of the public record within 30 days. RFP Nos. 45, 68, 73, and 79 are granted
subject to the following limitations: RFP Nos. 68 and 73 are
limited to documents from 2019; and RFP Nos. 45 and 79 are limited to documents
concerning the Subject Vehicle.
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
A trial court may decline to rule on evidence that is not
material to the disposition of the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
On receipt
of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may move for an order
compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300),
requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and request for
production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310). “Unless notice of this motion is
given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any
supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the
requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the
requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests
for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290, subd. (c).
MEET AND CONFER
A motion to compel further responses to
requests for production of documents must be accompanied by a meet and confer
declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)
The Court finds
that the meet and confer requirement has been met. (Smith Decl. ¶¶
26-34, Exs. 7-12).
DISCUSSION
REQUESTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
RFP No. 1: All DOCUMENTS regarding the SUBJECT
VEHICLE that are maintained in YOUR databases. [This request requires DEFENDANT
to search all databases that contain the SUBJECT VEHICLE’S VIN
3FA6P0HD4KR174062 and produce all associated with that VIN.]
RFP No. 3: All investigations, reports, and/or
studies conducted by YOU and/or on YOUR behalf regarding the root cause or
failure analysis of any parts that were repaired or replaced on the SUBJECT
VEHICLE and returned by any of YOUR authorized repair facilities to YOU/or
anyone acting on YOUR behalf for analysis. [This request also requires the
responding party to search for and produce responsive DOCUMENTS regarding any
parts that were removed from the SUBJECT VEHICLE and returned by the repairing
dealer to the responding party for root cause analysis, failure analysis,
and/or any other analysis, and to produce a copy of such reports, analysis,
and/or similar documents. This request also requires FORD to provide any
documents showing how the returned part was handled after its return to FORD
(e.g., refurbished, returned to supplier for reimbursement, etc.]
RFP No. 12: All pre-sale or pre-purchase DOCUMENTS
that YOU made available to purchasers or lessees concerning the disclosure of a
problem, failures, malfunctions, or defect(s) regarding the ENGINE DEFECT(s) in
FORD VEHICLES equipped with the 1.5L engine like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
RFP No. 15: All DOCUMENTS, including live telephone
call recordings, audio recordings, tape recordings, voice messaging records,
caller message recordings, digital voice recordings, interactive voice response
unit (IVR/VRV) recordings, unified messaging files, transcripts, emails, and
computer-based voice mail files regarding any repairs, complaints, problems,
surveys, regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
RFP No. 17: All DOCUMENTS, including e-mails,
concerning any internal analysis or investigations by YOU or on YOUR behalf
regarding ENGINE DEFECT(S) in FORD VEHICLES equipped with the 1.5L engine like
the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This request shall be interpreted to include any
pre-release or post-release investigation and analysis to determine the root
cause of such ENGINE DEFECT(S), any such investigation for implementing a
countermeasure or permanent repair procedure for such ENGINE DEFECT(S), any
such investigation into the failure rates of parts associated with such ENGINE
DEFECT(S), any cost analysis for implementing a proposed repair procedure, any
savings analysis for not implementing proposed repair procedures, etc. Further,
this Request requires DEFENDANT to produce all associated DOCUMENTS, including
metadata where applicable, by the Custodian’s name job title, and job
description.]
RFP No. 19: All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails,
which contain a root cause, root cause analysis, and/or identify a probable
root cause of the ENGINE DEFECT(S) in in FORD VEHICLES. [“Root cause,” as used
herein, means the ultimate cause or causes that, if eliminated, would have
prevented the occurrence of the failures. “Root cause analysis” as used herein
means any systemic investigation that reviews available empirical and
analytical evidence with the goal of identifying a root cause of a failure.
“Probable root cause” as used herein means a cause identified with high
probability, as the root cause of a failure.]
RFP No. 31: All Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
reports (or comparable analyses) regarding the ENGINE DEFECT(S) in FORD
VEHICLES equipped with the 1.5L engine like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
RFP No. 36: All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails,
concerning any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty
extensions, service messages, technical service bulletins, and recalls,
concerning the ENGINE DEFECT(S) in FORD VEHICLES equipped with the 1.5L engine
like the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This request requires the responding party to
provide the underlying investigation, report, and/or analysis that resulted in
the issuance of any such notice, letter, campaign, warranty extension,
technical service bulletin, and recall, concerning the ENGINE DEFECT(S). Thus,
such information shall pre-date the issuance of any such notice, letter,
campaign, warranty extension, technical service bulletin, and recall.]
RFP No. 39: All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails,
concerning or relating in any way to any decision to modify the 10R80, and/or
any of its component parts, in response to ENGINE DEFECT(S) in FORD VEHICLES,
from one year prior to Plaintiff’s purchase of the SUBJECT VEHICLE until the
present.
RFP No. 43: All DOCUMENTS, including power points,
memoranda, reports, warnings, investigations, assessments, lessons learned
summaries or reports, quality information reports, engineering reviews,
summaries, executive reviews, executive reports, or any equivalent thereof,
that were prepared by any of YOUR engineers or suppliers, concerning the ENGINE
DEFECT(S) in FORD VEHICLES equipped with the 1.5L engine like the SUBJECT
VEHICLE.
RFP No. 45: All executive summaries, summaries,
reports, analyses, evaluations, or memoranda, regarding the problems with the
1.5L engine in FORD VEHICLES. [This request shall be understood to include
information regarding defining the problem, the customer effect, identifying or
inability to identify the root cause, recreating any failures, test results,
corrective action, countermeasures, lessons learned and/or any next steps.]
RFP No. 46: All DOCUMENTS, including organizational
charts of individuals, employees, officers, directors, and/or agents within
YOUR recall, quality, warranty, engineering, and/or research development
department, team, committee, group, etc., from one year prior to Plaintiff’s
purchase of the SUBJECT VEHICLE until the present.
RFP No. 56: All DOCUMENTS that YOU use or have used,
since 2019, to evaluate consumer requests for repurchases or replacements
pursuant to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
RFP No. 57: All DOCUMENTS regarding YOUR rules,
policies, or procedures since 2019 concerning the issuance of refunds to buyers
or providing replacement vehicles to buyers in the State of California under
the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
RFP No. 58: All training manuals and/or other
DOCUMENTS relating to the training given to YOUR employees, agents, or
representatives, since 2019, in connection with handling consumer lemon law
repurchase requests.
RFP No. 68: All LEMON LAW DOCUMENTS published by YOU
and provided to YOUR employees, agents, and representatives.
RFP No. 69: All DOCUMENTS, including ESI, setting
forth YOUR document retention policies from 2019 to the present, including
retention policies for electronic data and communications.
RFP No. 73: YOUR recall policies and procedures.
RFP No. 76: All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, regarding any
communications between YOU and any government agency or entity (e.g., the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), the Environmental
Protection Agency (“EPA”), or any other similar government agency, regarding
ENGINE DEFECT(S) in FORD VEHICLES.
RFP No. 77: All communications with and DOCUMENTS
provided to or received from the supplier of the 1.5L engine in FORD VEHICLES
regarding an actual or suspected 1.5L engine condition, issue, problem, or
defect.
RFP No. 78: All Early Warning Reports (“EWR”) YOU submitted to NHTSA
concerning FORD VEHICLES.
RFP No. 79: All Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation (“TREAD”) reports YOU submitted concerning
FORD VEHICLES.
RFP No. 80: All NHTSA complaints in YOUR possession, custody, or
control, that relate to ENGINE DEFECT(S) in FORD VEHICLES.
RFP No. 82: All DOCUMENTS, including analyses and
reports, that YOU provided to or received from part suppliers concerning the
ENGINE DEFECT(S) in FORD VEHICLES equipped with the 1.5L engine like the
SUBJECT VEHICLE.
RFP No. 83: All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails,
concerning any communications YOU have had with part suppliers regarding the
ENGINE DEFECT(S) in FORD VEHICLES equipped with the 1.5L engine like the
SUBJECT VEHICLE.
Plaintiff seeks further responses to RFPs
1, 3, 12, 15, 17, 19, 31, 36, 39, 43, 45, 46, 56, 57, 58, 68, 69, 73, 76, 77,
78, 79, 80, 82 and 83. Plaintiff argues that FMC’s responses are not code-compliant
and contain boilerplate objections.
Plaintiff characterizes the RFPs as
falling into five categories: (1) documents concerning the Subject Vehicle
(Nos. 1, 3, 12, and 15); (2) documents concerning FMC’s internal knowledge and
investigation in other vehicles regarding the engine defects in other vehicles with
the same engine as the Subject Vehicle (Nos. 17, 19, 31, 36, and 39); (3)
documents concerning summaries, memorandum, PowerPoints regarding the engine
defects in other vehicles with the same engine as the Subject Vehicle (Nos. 43,
45 and 46); (4) documents concerning FMC’s lemon law policies and procedures
(Nos. 56, 57, 58, 68, 69 and 73); and (5) documents concerning communication
with governmental agencies and suppliers (Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82 and 83). Plaintiff
asserts that there is good cause to seek these documents because they are
relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and various issues presented in the Complaint,
including whether FMC knew of the alleged defects.
In the opposition (the “Opposition”), FMC argues its existing
responses are code-compliant and its privilege objections are proper and
merited. FMC
argues that Plaintiff has not established good cause to compel further
responses or production. FMC also contends that Plaintiff’s definition of
“ENGINE DEFECT(S)” does not adequately describe the information sought, and the
requests are overly broad and burdensome. FMC additionally argues cost shifting
is appropriate if the Court compels FMC to produce discovery.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause that the
RFPs seek documents relevant to the action. FMC’s current objections are stated
in boilerplate and conclusory language and its responses are not code compliant
under CCP section 2031.210. As to FMC’s argument regarding Plaintiff’s Engine
Defect definition, Plaintiff provides the following definition: “[t]he term ‘ENGINE
DEFECT(S)’ shall be understood to mean such defects which result in symptoms,
including, loss of power; rough running; engine misfire(s); loss of coolant
and/or oil; low coolant and/or oil; failure and/or replacement of the engine,
cylinder, long block, and/or engine components; and/or any other similar
concern identified in the repair history for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” The Court
finds that this definition adequately describes the information sought as it is
based on Plaintiff’s repair orders.
Notwithstanding, the Court finds that RFP
Nos. 68 and 73 should be limited to documents from 2019, whereas RFP Nos. 45
and 79 should be limited to documents concerning the Subject Vehicle. Further,
as to RFP Nos. 76, 78, and 80, the Court limits the requests to documents that
are not publicly available NHTSA documents.
Sanctions are not requested and the Court
declines to impose sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the Motion in part and orders
FMC to produce supplemental verified, code-compliant responses to the RFPs and
produce all responsive documents which are not part of the public record within
30 days. RFP Nos. 45, 68,
73, and 79 are granted subject to the limitation described above.
Moving Party to give notice.
Dated: May 15, 2024 ___________________________________
Joel L. Lofton
Judge of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must
send an email to the court indicating their
intention to submit.
alhdeptx@lacourt.org