Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV02900, Date: 2025-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV02900    Hearing Date: May 23, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.   Allegations

Plaintiff Mitzzy Rogel aka Mitzzy Karine Rogel (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on October 20, 2019, she entered into a warranty contract with Defendant BMW of North America (“BMW”) regarding a new 2019 BMW 330i for a total purchase price of $50,513.48.  Plaintiff alleges that defects and nonconformities to the warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period that impaired the use, value, and/or safety of the subject vehicle.  Plaintiff alleges that she delivered the vehicle to BMW’s repair facility for repair of the nonconformities, but BMW was unable to conform the vehicle to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of repair attempts.  Plaintiff alleges that BMW failed to promptly offer to repurchase or replace the vehicle or make restitution.

The complaint, filed July 15, 2024, alleges a single cause of action for violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty.

B.    Motion on Calendar

On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel BMW’s further responses to Requests for Production (“RPD”).     

On May 12, 2025, BMW filed an opposition brief.

On May 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves to compel BMW further responses to RPD Nos. 18 and 44.  Plaintiff seeks sanctions against BMW and its attorney of record in the amount of $2,672.50. 

            RPD No. 18 seeks the operative Franchise Agreement, if any, on the date of the sale of the subject vehicle, between BMW and the dealership that sold the subject vehicle to Plaintiff.  BMW objected that the RPD seeks irrelevant information that is unrelated to Plaintiff’s ownership, experience, and/or complaints or the subject vehicle; the RPD is overbroad and not limited in scope to Plaintiff’s ownership and operation of the vehicle; the RPD seeks confidential information without application of a protective order; and the RPD seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.  Plaintiff argues that the document is necessary to show the agency relationship between Defendant and the dealership and it is relevant to any motion to compel arbitration that Defendant might file based on the Retail Installment Sales Contract between Plaintiff and the dealership.  However, the dealership is not a party to this action and Plaintiff has not stated her intention of adding the dealership to this action (nor has Defendant filed a cross-claim against the dealership). Further, while Plaintiff argues that the franchise agreement is necessary to ascertain the “agency relationship,” it is unclear for what purpose this is necessary as, again, BMW is the only defendant in this action and the dealership (New Century BMW in Alhambra) has not been sued.  In opposition, BMW argues that there are no alter ego allegations, New Century is not a co-defendant, and Plaintiff is suing on the warranty agreement and not the sales agreement, such that the franchise agreement is irrelevant to this action.  It also argues that manufacturer-dealership relationships in California are highly regulated by statute, such that new motor vehicle dealers are legally required to be franchisees of manufacturers/distributors.  (Opp. at p.6 [citing Vehicle Code, § 11713.1(f)].)  For the first time in the reply brief, Plaintiff argues that she is “informed and believes” that the franchise agreement sets forth reciprocal obligations of the parties with regard to warranty repairs, such that New Century’s obligations to diagnose and repair vehicles and seek BMW’s assistance for repeat visits.  (Reply at p.1.)  The Court finds that Plaintiff has not established good cause for the production of the franchise agreement in her moving papers.  At this stage of the action, the Court is inclined only to allow the production of documents listed in CCP § 871.26, and a franchise agreement is not listed among the types of documents that should be initially disclosed.  The motion is denied as to RPD No. 18.

RPD No. 44 seeks all correspondence that BMW received from the California Department of Consumer Affairs regarding the sufficiency of its third-party dispute resolution process from 2019 to the present.  BMW objected that the RPD failed to identify the documents with reasonable particularity; the RPD was vague, sought irrelevant and confidential documents; the RPD improperly called for the premature disclosure of expert witness discovery; and the RPD sought documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.  Plaintiff argues that in response to RFAs and FROGs, BMW stated that it maintained a qualified third-party dispute resolution process in California through the National Cener for Dispute Settlement, LLC.  Plaintiff argues that for Defendant’s third-party dispute resolution process to become qualified, the Department of Consumer Affairs must certify it as such and if BMW did not have a qualified process, then she can provide that BMW’s failure to promptly repurchase or replace the subject vehicle was willful.  In opposition, BMW argues that these documents are irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claim regarding whether her vehicle was fit for use in the first year or had a substantially impairing defect that was not repaired in a reasonable number of repair attempts.  (Opp. at p.2.)

The Court does not credit BMW’s objections regarding privilege or premature disclosure. Nevertheless, in the Court’s view, BMW’s qualified third-party dispute resolution process is an issue only as to whether it existed or not, or was certified or not. The correspondence associated with that certification, or lack thereof, do not add anything of use to the case. Moreover, for the same reasons discussed above, the Court will deny the motion as to RPD No. 44 and will limit the discovery of documents only to those listed in CCP § 871.26’s initial disclosures. 

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant BMW of North America’s further responses to Requests for Production is denied as to RPD Nos. 18 and 44.

No sanctions shall be awarded.