Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24GDCV00171, Date: 2024-10-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24GDCV00171 Hearing Date: October 4, 2024 Dept: NCB
North Central District
ELIZABETH VIZCARRA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v.
KIA AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant. |
Case No.: 24GDCV00171
Hearing Date: October 4, 2024 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
|
BACKGROUND
A. Allegations
Plaintiffs Elizabeth Vizcarra and Rafael Vizcarra, Jr. (“Plaintiffs”) allege that on February 27, 2022, Plaintiffs purchased a 2022 Kia Telluride. Plaintiffs alleges that the complaint arises out of the warranty and repair obligations of Defendant Kia America, Inc. (“Defendant”) in connection with the vehicle and that the warranty was not issued by the selling dealership. Plaintiffs allege that the vehicle was delivered with and/or developed serious defects and nonconformities to the warranty, including but not limited to, engine and electrical system defects. Plaintiffs allege that they delivered the vehicle for repairs on November 5, 2023 and November 24, 2023. Plaintiffs seek to revoke acceptance of the sales contract.
The complaint, filed January 29, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) violation of the Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty; (2) violation of the Song-Beverly Act – breach of implied warranty; and (3) violation of the Song-Beverly Act § 1793.2.
B. Motion on Calendar
On August 28, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to RPD Nos. 1-31.
On September 20, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition brief.
On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s further responses to RPD Nos. 1-31. RPD Nos. 1-14 seek document related to Plaintiffs’ own vehicle; Nos. 15-22 seek policies and procedures for handling Song-Beverly cases; Nos. 23-29 seek documents related to Defendant’s warranty policy and procedure for handling Song-Beverly cases; and Nos. 30-31 relate to Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle.
In opposition, Defendant argues that it agreed to produce documents subject to a protective order, but Plaintiffs filed this motion prior to Defendant completing its search for responsive documents of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant states that it has produced all confidential information with the exception of the category of documents regarding the same year, make, and model data due to a technical difficulty issue; however, Defendant believes it will produce the documents no later than September 27, 2024. (Opp. at p.1.) Defendant, thus, argues that this motion will become moot by the time it is heard. In the reply brief, Plaintiffs argue that they have not received any supplemental documents as of September 26, 2024. (Reply at p.1.)
As the Court is not aware of whether Defendant has provided supplemental responses, the Court considers the substantive merits of the RPDs at issue.
RPD Nos. 1-14 seek documents related to Plaintiffs’ own vehicle:
· RPD No. 1 seeks all documents regarding the subject vehicle that are within Defendant’s Customer Relations Center (“CRC”).
· RPD No. 2 seeks all documents which evidence, support, refer, or relate to each of the affirmative defenses as set forth in Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
· RPD No. 3 seeks all documents which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any inspection of the subject vehicle.
· RPD No. 4 seeks all documents that refer or relate to all repair orders pertaining to the subject vehicle in Defendant’s possession, custody or control.
· RPD No. 5 seeks all documents, including manuals, and express warranty booklets provided to consumers with respect to the purchase or lease of the subject vehicle.
· RPD No. 6 seeks 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 Plaintiffs, in connection with the subject vehicle.
· RPD No. 7 seeks all documents that refer or relate to all diagnostic trouble codes that are electronically stored by Defendant or its authorized repair facility as result of any inspections or repairs conducted on the subject vehicle.
· RPD No. 8 seeks all documents, including recalls, technical service bulletins (“TSBs”), and dealer advisories that were issued for the subject vehicle.
· RPD No. 9 seeks that refer to or relate to any contact or communications between Defendant and its authorized repair facility regarding the subject vehicle.
· RPD No. 10 seeks all documents that refer to or relate to any summaries of all warranty repairs performed on the subject vehicle.
· RPD No. 11 seeks all documents that refer to or relate to any summaries of all amounts paid by Defendant for warranty repairs performed on the subject vehicle
· RPD No. 12 seeks all photographs or videotapes of the subject vehicle taken by Defendant or its authorized repair facility.
· RPD No. 13 seeks all documents which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any contact or communications between Defendant and Plaintiffs.
· RPD No. 14 seeks all documents which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any contact or communications with any third parties relating to the subject vehicle.
Defendant objected to Nos. 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-14 on the grounds that the RPDs were overbroad, vague, and irrelevant; and sought proprietary, commercially sensitive, and confidential information. Defendant “presumed” the RPDs did not seek attorney-client privileged information or attorney work product. Without waiving objections, Defendant responded that it would comply with the RPDs in part and produce documents within its possession, custody, or control and to which no objection was being made, including sales records, the service records, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, the Owner’s Manual for the subject vehicle, the Warranty History Inquiry, and Customer Care Case Reports, subject to entry of a protective order. The Court notes that a protective order was entered and filed on August 5, 2024.
These RPDs are not overly broad, vague, or irrelevant as asked, but seek documents related to the subject vehicle at issue in this action. The objections are overruled. If Defendant is withholding documents related to the subject vehicle, such documents should be produced. Defendant has not substantiated how documents related to the subject vehicle amount to attorney-client communications or attorney work product doctrine. In addition, if Defendant believes the documents are privileged based on confidentiality, Defendant should produce documents subject to the protective order (which the parties have now entered), or a privilege log should be produced. Documents created by defense attorneys or direct communications to and from defense attorneys are excluded from this requirement. The motion is granted as to RPD Nos. 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-14.
With respect to No. 4, Defendant objected on similar grounds and responded that it will produce service records for the subject vehicle, but cannot produce documents for repairs or services performed on the subject vehicle of which it is not aware (such as a third party repair facility). With respect to No. 12, Defendant objected in a similar manner as above and responded that it was not aware of any responsive documents. Defendant should provide a response that is code compliant with CCP § 2031.230: “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” The motion is granted as to RPD Nos. 4 and 12 in this limited respect.
With respect to No. 8, Defendant objected that the RPD sought irrelevant information and was not limited in time and scope. Defendant responded it would comply with the demand and produce TSBs, if any, related to the issues alleged by Plaintiffs to exist in the subject vehicle, but Defendant also contended that there was no defect that substantially affected the use, value, or safety of the vehicle. To the extent that the recall documents, TSBs, and dealer advisories were not produced for the subject vehicle (2022 Kia Telluride), production should be made. The document sought are relevant to the action to ascertain whether defects existed in the vehicle and the RPD is limited in time and scope to the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. The motion is granted as to RPD No. 8.
RPD Nos. 15-22 seek policies and procedures for handling Song-Beverly cases. RPD No. 15 seeks all documents which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to Defendant’s rules, policies, or procedures since 2020 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. RPD No. 16 seeks all documents which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to Defendant’s Call Center Policies and Procedures for escalating customer complaints relating to any defects present in their vehicle. RPD No. 18 seeks all documents which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to its Policies and Procedures for determining whether a vehicle should be repurchased or replaced under the Act. RPD No. 19 seeks all documents which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any flow charts used by Defendant for the purpose of escalating customer complaints. RPD No. 20 seeks all documents which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any flow charts used by Defendant for the purpose of evaluating whether a vehicle qualifies for repurchase or replacement under the Act. RPD No. 22 seeks all documents referencing, evidencing, and/or relating to any policies or procedures followed by its CRC 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.
Defendant objected to Nos. 15-16, 18-20, and 22 on the grounds that the RPDs were overbroad, vague, and irrelevant; and sought proprietary, commercially sensitive, and confidential information. Without waiving objections, Defendant responded that it would comply with the RPDs in part and produce documents within its possession, custody, or control and to which no objection was being made, including the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual for the subject vehicle and responsive portions of the Service Policy and Procedures Manual and Call Matrix, subject to a protective order.
The Court will limit the RPDs to the time period from 2022 to the present (which is the year of the subject vehicle), and will limit the geographical location of the documents, as least in the first round of discovery, to the Los Angeles area. The discovery shall also be limited to only vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle (2022 Kia Telluride vehicle) and the defects shall be limited to engine and electrical system defects. With these limitations, the motion is granted as to RPD Nos. 15-16, 18-20, and 22.
RPD No. 17 seeks all documents which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to Defendant’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. 21 seeks all documents evidencing and/or describing Defendant’s training materials related to its policy regarding how to calculate a repurchase. Defendant objected to the RPDs on the basis that they were overbroad, vague, and irrelevant; and sought proprietary, commercially sensitive, and confidential information. The Court will order a further response as to RPD Nos. 17 and 21, but subject to the same limitations as stated above regarding No. 15.
RPD Nos. 23-29 seek documents related to Defendant’s warranty policy and procedure for handing Song-Beverly cases:
· RPD No. 23 seeks any document that refers or relates to Defendant’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 2020 to the present.
· RPD No. 24 seeks any document which refers or relates to Defendant’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 2020 to the present.
· RPD No. 25 seeks any document which refers or relates to Defendant’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 2020 to the present.
· RPD No. 26 seeks any document which refers or relates to Defendant’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to its authorized repair facilities on what type of repairs require approval by Defendant in order to cover the repair under warranty from 2020 to the present.
· RPD No. 27 seeks any document which refers or relates to Defendant’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 2020 to the present.
· RPD No. 28 seeks any document which refers or relates to Defendant’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to its authorized repair facilities on what type of repairs will not be reimbursed by Defendant as warranty repairs from 2020 to the present.
· RPD No. 29 seeks any document which refers or relates to Defendant’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 2020 to the present.
Defendant objected to RPD Nos. 23-25 and 29, on the grounds that the documents sought were not specifically described; were overbroad, vague, and irrelevant; and sought proprietary, commercially sensitive, and confidential information. Defendant responded that it did not have a document entitled Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals, but it referred Plaintiffs to the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, and relevant portions of the Service Policy and Procedures Manual (production subject to a protective order). The Court will limit the RPDs to the time period from 2022 to the present (which is the year of the subject vehicle), and will limit the geographical location of the documents, as least in the first round of discovery, to the Los Angeles area. The discovery shall also be limited to only vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle (2022 Kia Telluride vehicle) and the repairs/defects/customer complaints shall be limited to engine and electrical system defects. With these limitations, the motion is granted as to RPD Nos. 23-25 and 29.
Defendant objected to RPD Nos. 26-28 on the same grounds as above, as well as on the grounds that the RPDs sought the disclosure of personal information of individuals not associated with the litigation; sought attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product doctrine; and improperly sought unrelated complaints of other vehicles of the same year, make, and model that have no bearing on Plaintiffs’ claims. RPD Nos. 26-28 do not specifically seek the disclosure of third-party information, but seeks documents regarding Defendant’s general policies on what type of repairs require approval by Defendant in order to cover a repair under warranty, the length for test drives on certain types of complaints, and what type of repairs will not be reimbursed by Defendant as warranty repairs. Similar to the limitations above, these RPDs will be limited to the time period from 2022 to the present (which is the year of the subject vehicle), and the geographical location of the documents, as least in the first round of discovery, to the Los Angeles area. The discovery shall also be limited to only vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle (2022 Kia Telluride vehicle) and the repairs/defects/customer complaints shall be limited to engine and electrical system defects. The motion is granted as to RPD Nos. 26-28 subject to these limitations.
RPD Nos. 30-31 relate to Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle:
· RPD No. 30 seeks all documents in the form of a list or compilation, of other Customer Complaints in Defendant’s electronically stored information of database(s) that are substantially similar to complaints made by Plaintiff with respect to the subject vehicle in other 2022 Kia Telluride vehicles. (“Substantially similar” is defined by Plaintiffs 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.)
· RPD No. 31 seeks all documents that refer to, reflect, or relate to any Field Service Action (“FSA”) issued, or in the process of being issued, in response to complaints experienced by Plaintiffs as described in Defendant’s warranty history/summary and within the line items of the repair orders created at its authorized repair facility.
Defendant objected to RPD Nos. 30-31 on similar grounds as it did to RPD No. 26. RPD Nos. 30-31 are not limited in geographical location, time, and scope (i.e., specifically the engine and electrical system defects, which should be more specifically described). Rather, the RPD No. 30 seeks documents regarding any type of complaint that is “similar” to Plaintiffs’ complaints. With respect to RPD No. 31, this RPD potentially seeks any FSA issued in response to complaints experienced by Plaintiffs without any limitation. The motion to compel Defendant’s further response to RPD Nos. 30 and 31 is denied as currently worded because the RPDs are overbroad in scope and not properly defined. The parties should meet and confer to find appropriate limitations for these RPDs.
No sanctions were requested.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Elizabeth Vizcarra and Rafael Vizcarra, Jr.’s motion to compel Defendant Kia America, Inc.’s further response is granted as to RPD Nos. 1-29, subject to the limitations stated in the Court’s written order. The motion is denied as to RPD Nos. 30-31. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses within 20 days of notice of this order.
Plaintiffs shall provide notice of this order.