Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV02686, Date: 2024-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV02686    Hearing Date: August 9, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Mariano Meza Servin Jr (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on June 17, 2023, Plaintiff entered into a warranty contact with Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM”) regarding a 2023 Honda Accord vehicle.  Plaintiff alleges that the warranty contract contained various warranties, including but not limited to the bumper-to-bumper warranty, powertrain warranty, emission warranty, etc.  Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle was delivered with serious defects and nonconformities to the warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities including, but not limited to, electrical, engine, emission, and suspension system defects.  Plaintiff alleges that he presented the vehicle for various issues in August 2023, on September 1, 2023, on September 8, 2023, and on September 27, 2023. 

Plaintiff alleges that he delivered the subject vehicle to Defendant Honda of North Hollywood (“Honda NoHo”) for repairs on numerous occasions.  Plaintiff alleges that Honda NoHo had a duty to use ordinary skill in storage, preparation, and repair of the subject vehicle, but Honda NoHo breached its duty. 

The complaint, filed on November 14, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) violation of the Song Beverly Act – breach of express warranty against AHM; (2) violation of the Act – breach of implied warranty against AHM; (3) violation of the Act, section 1793.2(b) against AHM; and (4) negligent repair against Defendant Honda of North Hollywood.

B.     Motion on Calendar

On May 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel AHM’s further response to Requests for Production of Documents, set one, Nos. 1-31. 

On July 29, 2024, AHM filed an opposition brief.  On July 30, 2024, AHM filed a separate statement in opposition to the motion. 

On August 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves to compel AHM’s further responses to RPD.  According to page 2 of the notice of motion, Plaintiff seeks further responses as to Nos. 1-31, while page 3 of the notice and the conclusion of the memorandum of points and authorities state that Plaintiff is seeking further responses to Nos. 15, 17, and 22-31.  The Court notes that the motion is not accompanied by a separate statement.  For future motions to compel further responses, Plaintiff is advised to file a separate statement or a concise outline detailing what discovery requests and objections are at issue.  A copy of Plaintiff’s RPD requests is attached as Exhibit 3 to the motion papers.  A copy of AHM’s objections is attached as Exhibit 4 to the motion papers.  AHM has filed a separate statement with its opposition papers.

            RPD Nos. 15, 17, and 22 relate to AHM’s policies and procedures for handling Song-Beverly cases; Nos. 23-29 relate to AHM’s warranty policy and procedure for handling; and Nos. 30-31 are regarding similar customer complaints. 

            RPD No. 15 seeks all documents which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to AHM’s 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.  AHM objected that the RPD was vague and overly broad, sought irrelevant information, failed to describe with reasonable particularity the documents requested, and sought communications between AHM, its employees, and legal counsel which was protected by the attorney-client privilege.  Without waiving objections, AHM stated that it could not comply with the request and has made a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with the RPD, but it has no written policies and/or procedures during the identified time period concerning the issuance of refunds to buyers or providing replacement vehicles to buyers in the State of California under the Act, and no such documents have ever existed because it evaluates claims under the Act in good faith on a case-by-case basis.  Here, AHM’s response is code compliant as it states that no documents have ever existed.  (See CCP § 2031.230.)  As such, the motion is denied as to RPD No. 15. 

            RPD No. 17 seeks all documents which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to AHM’s Call Center Policies and Procedures for creating a Service Activity in response to customer complaints relating to any defects present in their vehicle.  RPD No. 22 seeks all documents referencing, evidencing, and/or relating to any policies or procedures followed by its Customer Relation Center to advise customers to deliver their vehicles to its authorized repair facilities for further diagnosis or repair instead of offering a repurchase or replacement of the vehicle under the Act.  AHM objected to the RPDs and responded without waiving objections that it could not comply with the requests because it has no written policies for creating a “Service Activity” in response to customer complaints related to defects and it has no written policies/procedures advising customers to deliver their vehicles to authorized Honda repair facilities for further diagnosis or repair instead of offering a repurchase or replacement.  It states that no such documents have ever existed.  For the same reasons as above, the motion is denied as to RPD Nos. 17 and 22. 

RPD No. 23 seeks any document that refers or relate to AHM’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to its authorized repair facilities with respect to how to determine whether repairs should be covered under warranty from 2017 to the present.  RPD No. 24 seeks any document which refers or relates to AHM’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to its authorized repair facilities with respect to whether repairs should be covered under warranty as “goodwill” from 2017 to the present.  RPD No. 25 seeks any document which refers or relates to AHM’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to its authorized repair facilities with respect to repeated repair visits for similar complaints by the consumer from 2017 to the present. RPD No. 26 seeks any document which refers or relates to AHM’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to its authorized repair facilities on what type of repairs require approval by AHM in order to cover the repair under warranty from 2017 to the present.  RPD No. 27 seeks any document which refers or relates to AHM’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to its authorized repair facilities on the length for test drives on certain customer complaints to be covered under warranty from 2017 to the present.  RPD No. 28 seeks any document which refers or relates to AHM’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to its authorized repair facilities on what type of repairs will not be reimbursed by AHM as warranty repairs from 2017 to the present.  RPD No. 29 seeks any document which refers or relates to AHM’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to its 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.

            AHM objected to RPD Nos. 23-29 and responded that pursuant to a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, it has no automotive "Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual" provided to authorized Honda repair facilities and no such manual has ever existed in its possession, custody, and control. Although it was not a “Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual,” AHM offered to produce a copy of various sections of its 2023 Service Operations Manual, directed to warranty repair, subject to an appropriate protective order in response to RPD Nos. 23-26 and 28.  To Nos. 27 and 29, AHM objected and responded without waiving objections that it could not comply with the requests because, pursuant to a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, AHM has no automotive “Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual” provided to authorized Honda repair facilities, and no such manual ever existed in its possession, custody, or control. 

it has no written policies for creating a “Service Activity” in response to customer complaints.  Although AHM objected to the RPDs, it also responded that no such documents existed and that it would produce a different type of document in the spirit of cooperation.  However, if no responsive document exists, then AHM’s responses are code compliant.  The motion is denied as to RPD Nos. 23-29.         

            RPD No. 30 seeks all documents in the form of a list or compilation, of other Customer Complaints in AHM’s electronically stored information of database(s) that are substantially similar to complaints made by Plaintiff with respect to the subject vehicle in other 2023 Honda Accord vehicles.  (“Substantially similar” is defined by Plaintiff to mean similar customer complaint that would be the same nature of the reported system, malfunction, trouble code, TSB 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.)  AHM objected on similar grounds as above and argued that Plaintiff is not entitled to seek unrelated complaints in other 2023 Honda Accord vehicles.  As requested, RPD No. 30 is overbroad.  While the RPD seeks documents regarding the 2023 Honda Accord vehicles, the RPD is not limited in geographical location or time, and scope (i.e., specifically the electrical and transmission defects, which should be more specifically described).  Rather, the RPD seeks documents regarding any type of complaint that is “similar” to Plaintiff’s complaints.  As currently worded, the motion to compel Defendant’s further response to RPD No. 30 is denied.  The parties should meet and confer about limiting and precisely defining the specific defect at issue, such that the documents produced relate to a specific complaint that Plaintiff made a repair facility, and be limited (at least in the first round of discovery) to the Los Angeles County region.  

RPD No. 31 seeks 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 AHM’s warranty history/summary and within the line items of the repair orders created at its authorized repair facility.  AHM objected to the RPD and responded without waiving objections that it is unable to comply with the RPD because it has made a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and has no "Field Service Actions" and no responsive documents have ever existed in its possession, custody, or control.  This response is code compliant to show AHM’s inability to comply based on the nonexistence of the documents requested.   As such, the motion is denied as to RPD No. 31. 

No sanctions were requested. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Mariano Meza Servin Jr’s motion to compel Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s further responses to RPD Nos. 15, 17, and 22-31 is denied. 

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: August 9, 2024                                                        ___________________________

                                                                                          John Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court