Judge Joel L. Lofton, Case Number: 23GDCV02153, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23GDCV02153, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV02153 Hearing Date: June 4, 2024 Dept: X

Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE: June 4, 2024 TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE: Sandra Miranda v. Kia America, Inc.

CASE NO.: 23GDCV02153

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Sandra Miranda

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Kia America, Inc

SERVICE: Filed March 5, 2024

OPPOSITION: Filed May 21, 2024

REPLY: Filed May 28, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendant to produce further responses to requests for production of documents, set one.

BACKGROUND

On May 17, 2020, Plaintiff purchased a 2020 Kia Forte, bearing VIN: 3KPF24AD8LE242706 (“Subject Vehicle”). The causes of action in the Complaint arise out of warranty and repair obligations of KIA AMERICA, INC. in connection with the Subject Vehicle for which Defendant issued a written warranty.

On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Kia America, Inc. alleging 3 causes of action for (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied of Implied Warranty, and (3)Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to its request for production of documents, set one is granted in part. To the extent that any request would require Defendant to produce privileged material, Defendant is not required produce the material.

Defendant is ordered to provide responsive documents, to the extent it has not already done so, to request for production of documents numbers 1-14.

Defendant is ordered to provide responsive documents to request for production of documents numbers 15-22 and 23-29 within 30 days of this order. However, the Court limits the requests from 2017 to 2020 (year of purchase).

Defendant is ordered to provide responsive documents to request for production of documents numbers 30-31 within 30 days of this order. However, the Court further limits the scope to only similar vehicle complaints of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle sold within California.

DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Declaration of Gregory Sogoyan ¶¶ 3- 15 OVERRULED

LEGAL STANDARD

The propounding party may bring a motion¿to compel further responses to a¿demand for production if the propounding party deems that production is deficient, incomplete, or contains meritless objections.¿(CCP¿§ 2031.310(a)).¿ The legal burden to justify refusing or failing to provide¿discovery lies with the objecting party.¿(Coy v. Superior Court¿(1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220).¿A motion to compel further response to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”¿(Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)¿

The motion must be accompanied by a good-faith meet-and-confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b)).¿“A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate . . . involves the exercise of discretion.”¿(Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency¿(2001) 87¿Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016).¿ “The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant.¿ Judges have broad powers and responsibility to determine what measure and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances.”¿(Id.)

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).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant provided inadequate responses to her Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

Meet and Confer

Here, on February 5, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a letter attempting to meet and confer in good faith regarding Defendant’s deficient responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. (Sogoyan Decl. ¶ 20.) On February 12, 2024, Defendant’s counsel responded to Plaintiff’s counsel’s Meet and Confer Letter, claiming that Defendant’s responses are satisfactory. (Id. at ¶ 21.) On February 13, 2024, Plaintiff´s counsel sent Defendant a further meet and confer letter. (Id. at ¶ 22.) Defendant argues that the meet and confer efforts were not in good faith. Nevertheless, Defendant fails to provide any evidence of bad faith. Thus, the meet and confer requirements were satisfied.

Separate Statement

Under Rule 3.1345, a Separate Statement must include the request, the response, and reason that a further response is needed. Here, the Plaintiff’s Separate Statement has the required information. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement p. 2-49.)

Timeliness of the Motions

“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 propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.300, subd. (c).) The same applies for request for production of documents. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310, subd. (c).)

On or about on November 29, 2023, Plaintiff propounded Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on Defendant seeking documents relating to: (1) Plaintiff’s own vehicle; (2) Defendant’s warranty and replacement/repurchase policies, procedures, and practices; and (3) Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle. (Sogoyan Decl. ¶ 17.) On January 17, 2024, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s written discovery. (Id. at ¶ 18.) On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. Thus, this motion is timely.

Request for Production of Documents

A. Requests Relating to the Subject Vehicle

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: All DOCUMENTS regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE that are within YOUR Customer Relations Center. “SUBJECT VEHICLE” shall mean the vehicle which is the subject of this lawsuit and identified as the 2020 Kia Forte, bearing VIN 3KPF24AD8LE242706.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, support, refer, or relate to each of the affirmative defenses as set forth in YOUR Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any inspection of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Produce all DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to all repair orders pertaining to the SUBJECT VEHICLE in YOUR possession, custody or control. [This request will be interpreted to include any and all DOCUMENTS maintained by YOUR authorized repair facilities (s) in the regular course of business, including all versions of such repair orders (accounting/invoice copies, customer copies, dealer copies, warranty copies, etc).

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Produce all DOCUMENTS, including manuals, and express warranty booklets provided to consumers with respect to the purchase or lease of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any Retail Installment Sale Contracts and/or Lease Agreements, including any associated documents reflecting OEM or aftermarket installed parts, service contracts, and any other writings signed by the Plaintiff, in connection with the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce all DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to all diagnostic trouble codes that are electronically stored by YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility as result of any inspections or repairs conducted on the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Produce all DOCUMENTS, including recalls, technical service bulletins, and dealer advisories that were issued for the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This request requires that the responding party produce the entire document. A production that only lists the name, number, and/or title of the document will not be responsive to this request].

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Produce all DOCUMENTS that refer to or relate to any CONTACT or COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and YOUR authorized repair facility regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Produce all DOCUMENTS that refer to or relate to any summaries of all warranty repairs performed on the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Produce all DOCUMENTS that refer to or relate to any summaries of all amounts paid by YOU for warranty repairs performed on the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: All photographs or videotapes of the SUBJECT VEHICLE taken by YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any CONTACT or COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and the Plaintiff.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any CONTACT or COMMUNICATIONS with any third parties relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. B. Defendant’s Policies and Procedures for Handling Song-Beverly Cases

B. Defendant’s Policies and Procedures for Handling Song-Beverly Cases

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to YOUR rules, policies, or procedures since 2017 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.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to YOUR Call Center Policies and Procedures for escalating customer complaints relating to any defects present in their vehicle

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to YOUR Call Center Policies and Procedures for creating a Service Activity in response to customer complaints relating to any defects present in their vehicle.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to YOUR Policies and Procedures for determining whether a vehicle should be repurchased or replaced under the Song Beverly Act.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any flow charts used by YOU for the purpose of escalating customer complaints.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any flow charts used by YOU for the purpose of evaluating whether a vehicle qualifies for repurchase or replacement under the Song-Beverly Act.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: All DOCUMENTS evidencing and/or describing YOUR training materials related to YOUR policy regarding how to calculate a repurchase.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: All DOCUMENTS referencing, evidencing, and/or relating to any policies or procedures followed by YOUR Customer Relation Center to advise customers to deliver their vehicles to YOUR authorized repair facilities for further diagnosis or repair instead of offering a repurchase or replacement of the vehicle under the Song-Beverly Act.

C. Defendant’s Warranty Policy and Procedure for Handling

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Any DOCUMENT which refers or relate to YOUR Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to YOUR authorized repair facilities with respect to how to determine whether repairs should be covered under warranty from 2017 to the present.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Any DOCUMENT which refers or relate to YOUR Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to YOUR authorized repair facilities with respect to whether repairs should be covered under warranty as “goodwill” from 2017 to the present.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Any DOCUMENT which refers or relate to YOUR Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to YOUR authorized repair facilities with respect to repeated repair visits for similar complaints by the consumer from 2017 to the present.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Any DOCUMENT which refers or relate to YOUR Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to YOUR authorized repair facilities on what type of repairs require approval by YOU in order to cover the repair under warranty from 2017 to the present.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Any DOCUMENT which refers or relate to YOUR Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to YOUR authorized repair facilities on the length for test drives on certain customer complaints to be covered under warranty from 2017 to the present.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Any DOCUMENT which refers or relate to YOUR Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to YOUR authorized repair facilities on what type of repairs will not be reimbursed by YOU as warranty repairs from 2017 to the present.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Any DOCUMENT which refers or relate to YOUR Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to YOUR authorized repair facilities on how to handle customer concerns that are not duplicated at the time of the repair visit from 2017 to the present.

D. Similar Customer Complaints

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: All DOCUMENTS, in the form of a list or compilation, of other Customer Complaints in YOUR electronically stored information of database(s) that are SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR to complaints made by Plaintiff with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE in other 2020 Kia Forte vehicles. “SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR” shall mean similar customer complaint that would be the same nature of the reported system, malfunction, trouble code, Technical Service Bulletin Recommendation, dashboard indicator light, or other manifestation of a repair problem, as description listed in any warranty summary or repair order for the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [The customer complaints in this matter can be found in Defendant’s warranty history/summary and within the line items of the repair orders created at Defendant’s authorized repair facility. If YOU are having issues determining Plaintiff’s Complaints, Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer and list out the specific complaints and the language used to describe them. This should not include any routine or scheduled maintenance items.]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: All DOCUMENTS that refer to, reflect, or relate to any Field Service Action issued, or in the process of being issued, in response to complaints experienced by Plaintiff as described in Defendant’s warranty history/summary and within the line items of the repair orders created at Defendant’s authorized repair facility.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has failed to produce or identify responsive documents. Defendant argues that its initial responses were full and complete, the requests pertaining to vehicles other than the subject vehicle should be denied, Plaintiff failed to set forth specific facts to support good cause, and Defendant’s objections are based on ambiguous, overboard, undue burden and relevance are valid.

The Code of Civil Procedure contemplates three forms of proper responses to a request for production: a statement of compliance in full or in part (CCP § 2031.220); a statement of inability to comply (CCP § 2031.230); and a partial objection coupled with a statement of compliance or representation of inability to comply (CCP § 2031.240).¿

Requests 1-14

Here, Defendant states, “KA gave a code-compliant response and already produced all responsive documents. KA has complied with the code by including objections to the documents requested. It is unclear what further response Plaintiff is requesting in response to this request that has not already been received. . ..” (Defendant’s Separate Statement at p. 3.) Defendant further states that it has supplemented responses to requests number 7, 17, 21, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31. (Gohari Decl. ¶10.) Although Defendant argues that the requests seek trade secret or privileged work, it does not appear that the requests seek trade secret material or privileged work. Additionally, Defendant failed to provide a privilege log. To the extent that any request would require Defendant to produce privileged material, Defendant is not required to produce the material.¿

Defendant is ordered to provide responsive documents to request for production of documents numbers 1-14 within 30 days of this order.

Requests 15-22

Here, Defendant states provides conclusory statements as to why these requests should be denied. For instance, Defendant argues that the requests are overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, the requests are irrelevant, and the interrogatory seeks propriety, commercially sensitive, and confidential information. The Court finds that Defendant did not meet its burden, however, Plaintiff showed good cause. Therefore, the Court grants the requests to compel further as to Requests 15-22. Although Defendant argues that the requests seek trade secret or privileged work, it does not appear that the requests seek trade secret material or privileged work. Additionally, Defendant failed to provide a privilege log. To the extent that any request would require Defendant to produce privileged material, Defendant is not required to produce the material.¿

Defendant is ordered to provide responsive documents to request for production of documents numbers 15-22 within 30 days of this order. However, the Court limits the requests from 2017 to 2020 (year of purchase) for Defendant’s Policies and Procedures for Handling Song-Beverly Cases.

Requests 23-29

For the same reasons mentioned above, these requests are granted. However, the Court limits the requests from 2017 to 2020 (year of purchase). Defendant is ordered to provide responsive documents to request for production of documents numbers 23-29 within 30 days of this order.

Requests 30-31

Here, Defendant failed to provide any facts or evidence as to how it would be unduly burdened by the requests. Further, Plaintiffs have shown that there is good cause to compel a further response to Request Nos. 30-31. Therefore, the Court further limits the scope to only similar vehicle complaints of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle sold within California. Although Defendant argues that the requests seek trade secret or privileged work, it does not appear that the requests seek trade secret material or privileged work. Additionally, Defendant failed to provide a privilege log. To the extent that any request would require Defendant to produce privileged material, Defendant is not required produce the material.

CONCLUSION

Defendant is ordered to provide responsive documents, to the extent it has not already done so, to request for production of documents numbers 1-14.

Moving party to provide notice.

Dated: June 4, 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