Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

TANIA MURRIETA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 23BBCV01131

Hearing Date: March 8, 2024

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FCOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

Plaintiffs Tania Murrieta and Jose Murrieta Garcia (“Plaintiffs”) allege that on October 15, 2018, they purchased a new 2019 Honda Odyssey. They allege they entered into an express written contract with Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Defendant”), referred to as the New Vehicle Limited Warranty. Plaintiff alleges that the transmission was defective. The transmission defect is described in the FAC as follows:

The defective nature of the transmission equipped in vehicles such as the Subject Vehicle, (“9-Speed Transmission Defect”, “ZF9HP defect”, or “Transmission Defect”) is caused by its use of a 9.8 ratio speed, as opposed to six (6), which ideally allows for shorter shifts between gears, and in turn, keeps the engine in a narrow, optimal band of RPMs for as long as possible, thus contributing to greater fuel-efficiency. Further, the ZF9HP Automatic Transmission borrows characteristics typically seen in manual transmissions, such as “dog clutches,” which use less power to shift than the friction clutches normally utilized in automatic transmissions. However, in contrast to manual transmission, the ZF9HP Automatic Transmission engages the dog clutches with computer software commands from an electronic control unit order to save space and ensure that the complex transmission actually fits the vehicles. Then, the ZF9HP software responds by initially cutting power, and then as the gears shift upward and downward, the dog clutches are engaged, and the throttle command is reinstated. As a result, there is a major delay from the time the gas pedal is engaged and the vehicle accelerates, where it then aggressively surges forwarded.

(FAC, ¶12.)

They allege that they hereby revoke acceptance of the subject vehicle by contacting Defendant and demanding that the vehicle be repurchased pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act.

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed November 2, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) violation of the Song Beverly Act – breach of express warranty; and (2) fraudulent inducement – concealment.

B. Motion on Calendar

On January 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production, set one (“RPD”) from Defendant. Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,125.

On February 26, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition brief.

On March 1, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

With the moving papers, Plaintiffs seek judicial notice of the complaint filed in Browning et al. v. American Honda Motor Co. et al. filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 5:20-cv-05417-BLF (“Browning Case”). The request is granted. (Evid. Code, § 452(d).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s further responses to RPD Nos. 20, 43, and 45.

RPD No. 20 seeks all scripts and flow charts that Defendant utilized in handling California consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase or replacement since 2018. Defendant objected that the RPD was vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and not phrased to describe with reasonable particularity the documents sought; the RPD asked Defendant to respond on behalf of other entities; responded that it was unable to comply with the RPD; and Defendant responded that it made a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with the RPD but it had no training materials regarding the handling of consumer requests since 2018 and no such documents ever existed that was not subject to the attorney-client privilege.

The documents sought in RPD No. 20 are clearly specified and are not vague or irrelevant, such that these objections are overruled. However, the RPD is overbroad in that it seeks all scripts and flow charts Defendant utilized from 2018 to the present for its California consumers, without specifying the subject vehicle type (i.e., 2019 Honda Odyssey). Defendant partially raises the attorney-client privilege but does not substantiate the claim of privilege in its opposition brief. The Court will order Defendant to provide a further response to RPD No. 20, limited to all scripts and flow charts that Defendant utilized in handling the vehicle at issue in this case. If Defendant is claiming that the attorney-client privilege as to any of these documents, then it should produce a privilege log. (See CCP § 2031.240(c).) If Defendant is not claiming the attorney-client privilege, then it should provide a code-complaint response to the interrogatory as narrowed without objection or a response that conforms with CCP § 2031.230. The remaining objections are overruled.

RPD No. 43 requests all documents evidencing complaints by owners of 2019 Honda Odyssey vehicles regarding any of the complaints for which the subject vehicle was presented for repair. Defendant objected that the RPD was vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant; the RPD failed to take into consideration the statutory construct of the Act as Plaintiffs’ claim for relief is unrelated to alleged complaints by other owners of 2019 Honda Odyssey vehicles; the documents sought were protected by the right of privacy; and the RPD sought confidential, commercially sensitive, and proprietary/trade secret information.

As requested, RPD No. 43 is overbroad. While the RPD seeks documents regarding the 2019 Honda Odyssey, the RPD is not limited in geographical location or time, and scope (i.e., the transmission defect). Rather, the RPD seeks documents regarding any type of complaint. The motion to compel Defendant’s further response to RPD No. 43 is denied.

RPD No. 45 requests all documents Defendant produced in connection with the Browning Case, which was filed on August 5, 2020. Defendant objected that the RPD was vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant; the RPD sought documents in an unrelated lawsuit; the RPD sought documents protected by the right of privacy; the RPD improperly sought attorney-client privileged documents; and the RPD sought confidential, commercially sensitive, and proprietary/trade secret information.

Plaintiffs argue that RPD No. 45 will help them obtain documents showing that Defendant’s refusal to promptly repurchase/replace Plaintiffs’ vehicle was willful and whether Defendant had exclusive access and knowledge of extensive information regarding the existence and consequences of the widespread malfunctions caused by the Honda Sensing defect. (Pl.’s Sep. Statement at pp. 15-16.) They argue that the documents in the Browning class action would undoubtedly contain relevant information about various consumer complaints and similar defects regarding the Honda Sensing system in the subject vehicle.

Based on the definition of the transmission defect in the FAC, the Honda Sensing system defect alleged in Browning Case appears to be different and would thus not be relevant to this action as this action alleges a transmission defect. Further, Defendant argues that the Browning Case includes all different types of allegations, vehicles, customers, and entities other than Honda. The Court finds RPD No. 45 to be overbroad in scope and that Plaintiffs have not established good cause for production pursuant to RPD No. 45. Defendant also informs the parties and the Court that there is a protective order in place in the Browning Case. (See Opp. Sep. Statement at p.32.) The Court will not order that discovery conducted in another action should automatically be duplicated for this action. The motion is denied as to RPD No. 45.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,125 against Defendant. The request is denied.

Defendant did not request sanctions in connection with its opposition brief.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Tania Murrieta and Jose Murrieta Garcia’s motion to compel Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s further responses to RPD No. 20 is granted, but subject to the limitation stated in the Court’s written order. The motion is denied as to RPD Nos. 43 and 45.

No sanctions shall be awarded on this motion.