Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

ladizlao rivera de la paz, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

toyota motor sales, u.s.a., inc.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 23BBCV00497

Hearing Date: May 3, 2024

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel further responses

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

Plaintiffs Ladizlao Rivera De La Paz and Lucila Rivera Munoz aka Lucila Rivera (“Plaintiffs”) allege that on July 7, 2019, they entered into a warranty contract with Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (“Defendant”) regarding a 2019 Toyota Tacoma. Plaintiffs allege that defects and nonconformities to the warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period, including but not limited to exterior, structural, transmission, and engine issues. Plaintiffs allege they delivered the subject vehicle to an authorized Toyota repair facility for repair of the nonconformities, but Defendant was unable to conform the vehicle to the applicable express warranty after a reasonable number of attempts.

The complaint, filed March 2, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) violation of the Song Beverly Act – breach of express warranty; and (2) violation of the Song Beverly Act § 1793.2.

B. Motion on Calendar

On March 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set one (“RPD”). Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,830 against Defendant and defense counsel.

On April 22, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition brief.

On April 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s further responses to RPD Nos. 15, 17-24, and 33-35.

RPD No. 15 seeks the operative Franchise Agreement, if any, on the date of the sale of the subject vehicle between Defendant and the dealership that sold the subject vehicle to Plaintiffs. Defendant objected that the RPD was vague, overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive; assumed facts that have not been established; violated the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges; was irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and constituted an invasion of privacy and sought proprietary information. Plaintiffs seek a further response, arguing that the franchise agreement would show what obligations Defendant imposed on the dealerships to report warranty repairs, the cost of repairs, and pre-approval for repairs, etc. In opposition, Defendant argues that it is not disputing that the dealer was Defendant’s agent or authorized dealer, such that the document need not be produced. The Court will order a further response for RPD No. 15, subject to a protective order. If Defendant claims that the Franchise Agreement is privileged, then it should produce a privilege log to that effect.

RPD Nos. 17-24 seek the following documents:

· RPD No. 17 seeks all documents describing Defendant’s policies, procedures, or guidelines for determining whether a vehicle is eligible for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2019.

· RPD No. 18 asks for all training materials for Defendant’s employees or agents tasked with determining whether a vehicle is eligible for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Act since 2022.

· RPD No. 19 seeks all scripts and flow charts that Defendant utilize in handling California consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase or replacement since 2019.

· RPD No. 20 seeks all documents describing Defendant’s policies, procedures, and parameters for determining what constitutes a repair presentation to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Act since 2022.

· RPD No. 21 seeks all documents describing Defendant’s policies, procedures, and parameters for determining what constitutes a “substantial impairment” of a vehicle’s use, value, or safety to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Act since 2022.

· RPD No. 22 all documents describing Defendant’s policies, procedures, and parameters for defining what constitutes a “reasonable number of repair attempts” to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Act since 2022.

· RPD No. 23 seeks all documents describing Defendant’s policies, procedures, and parameters for establishing the turn-around time to respond to a vehicle repurchase request pursuant to the Act since 2022.

· RPD No. 24 seeks all documents describing Defendant’s policies and procedures from 2019 to the present for proactively complying with the Act in California by offering a repurchase or replacement of a qualifying vehicle without a consumer request to do so.

Defendant objected in a similar manner to these RPDs as it did to RPD No. 15. As currently drafted, Plaintiffs’ RPDs can potentially seek all documents for any type of vehicle ever manufactured or distributed by Defendant without a limitation for geographical location. The RPDs as worded by Plaintiffs are overbroad in scope and would, in part, seek irrelevant information that is beyond the scope of this action. At most, the RPDs are limited from 2019 or 2022 to the present. The Court will narrow the scope of the RPDs such that Defendant need only produce documents regarding the 2019 Toyota Tacoma that constitute the policies, procedures, guidelines, scripts, flow charts, parameters, training manuals, etc. used by Defendant and its employees/agents/repair facilities/etc. in the State of California from 2019 to present in evaluating the Toyota Tacoma at issue for repurchase. As such, the motion is granted as to RPD Nos. 17 to 24 subject to these limitations stated above. If there are legitimate claims of privileges by Defendant, Defendant should produce a privilege log and/or the parties should meet and confer regarding a protective order.

RPD Nos. 33-35 seek the following documents:

· RPD No. 33 seeks Defendant’s policies and procedures for offering to repurchase a vehicle pre-litigation in California as “goodwill.”

· RPD No. 34 seeks Defendant’s template “goodwill” pre-litigation repurchase letter(s) in California.

· RPD No. 35 seeks Defendant’s template pre-litigation repurchase letter(s) for a vehicle being repurchased pursuant to the Act.

Defendant responded to RPD No. 33, stating that it evaluates each case in good faith in accordance with the provision of the Act. Defendant objected to RPD Nos. 33-35 on the grounds that the RPDs were vague, overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive; violated the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges; were not limited in time, or scope; were irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and constituted an invasion of privacy and sought proprietary information.

Similar to the analysis above, these RPDs are not limited in time, scope to the subject vehicle, or geographical location. The Court denies the motion as to RPD Nos. 33-35. Moreover, Plaintiff is seeking information regarding cases other than the one in front of the court.

Plaintiffs seek sanctions in the amount of $1,830 against Defendant. Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiffs for opposing this motion, but do not specify an amount. In light of the partial merit of both the motion and the opposition briefs, the requests for sanctions are denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Ladizlao Rivera De La Paz and Lucila Rivera Munoz aka Lucila Rivera’s motion to compel Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.’s further responses to RPD Nos. 15 and 17-24 is granted, but subject to the limitation stated in the Court’s written order. The motion is denied as to RPD Nos. 33-35.

No sanctions shall be awarded on this motion.

Plaintiffs shall give notice of this order.

DATED: May 3, 2024 ___________________________

John Kralik

Judge of the Superior Court