Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV35968, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35968    Hearing Date: October 12, 2023    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Matthew Allen and Christine Steenken Allen (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for an order compelling Defendant AHM (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 21, 22, 31-39, and 46-53. The motion is opposed.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows. The motion is GRANTED with regard to requests Nos. 37, 38, 39 (each limited to customers in California) and Nos. 51, 52, and 53 (each excluding email communications). Defendant is ordered to produce further, code-compliant responses to those requests, and responsive documents, within 30 days of this ruling. The motion is DENIED with regard to all other requests for production of documents. The request for sanctions is DENIED.

Background

          Plaintiffs bring this lemon law action against Defendant alleging causes of action for violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, breach of express written warranty, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

Legal Standard

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: ¶ (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. ¶ (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. ¶ (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) 

Discussion

A.   Timeliness

“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c) [emphasis added].)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that although Defendant served its verified responses on January 18, 2023, the Defendant granted Plaintiffs an extension until May 12, 2023, to file the instant motion to compel. (Motion, declaration of Valerie G. Fernandez Campbell (“Campbell Decl.”), ¶ 7 [citing Exhibit E – a copy of defense counsel’s email].) The Court notes that Exhibit E does not provide any details regarding the parties’ agreement; it only contains an email from defense counsel stating, “Extension granted.” Nevertheless, Defendant does not dispute that the parties agreed to extend the motion to compel deadline.

Accordingly, the Court finds the motion timely.

B.    Meet and Confer

The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (Campbell Decl., ¶¶ 4-7.)

C.    Separate Statement

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(3), requires a motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things.

Here, Plaintiffs filed a separate statement outlining the categories of documents at issue, Defendant’s responses, and explaining why further responses were necessary.

Therefore, Plaintiffs have satisfied the separate statement requirement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

D.   Good Cause

Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendant’s further response to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”), Nos. 21, 22, 31-39, and 46-53. The Court notes that the Separate Statement also discusses RPD No. 17. (Separate Statement, pp. 2:3-5:19.) However, Plaintiffs did not state in their notice of motion that they are moving to compel further responses to RPD No. 17. (Notice of Motion, pp. 1:28-2:2; see also Separate Statement, p. 2:1-2 [stating they are seeking an order compelling further responses to Nos. 21, 22, 31-39, and 46-53].) Accordingly, the Court will only consider RPD Nos. 21, 22, 31-39, and 46-53.

Good cause showing must be made before production may be compelled. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1) [providing that a motion to compel further requests for production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand”]; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550 [“demands for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling … require a good cause showing before production may be compelled”].)

“Good cause” has been defined “as requiring that the party [1] produce specific facts justifying discovery and [2] that the inquiry be relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.)

RPD No. 21 asked Defendant to produce: “All DOCUMENTS identified in [its] responses to the Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, served concurrently with [the RPD].” (Separate Statement, p. 5:20-22.)

Defendant objected to the request, arguing that it was vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. (Separate Statement, p. 5:23-25.)

Since Plaintiffs did not attach a copy of their Special Interrogatories, Set One, the Court does not have enough information to rule on whether Defendant should be forced to compel further responses to RPD No. 21.

Accordingly, the request to compel further responses to RPD No. 21 is denied.

RPD No. 22 asked Defendant to produce: “A copy of [its] complete file relating to any arbitration proceeding concerning the [Vehicle].” (Separate Statement, p. 7:1-3.)

Defendant objected to the request (arguing that it was vague, ambiguous, and overly broad) and added, without waiving those objections, that it made a “diligent search and reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with this request and has no documents responsive to this request and no responsive documents have ever existed.” (Separate Statement, p. 7:5-10.)

Plaintiffs argue that the Court should compel further response to RPD No. 22, because (among other things) Defendant states “that it is not aware of any ‘non-privileged documents’ [citing RPD No. 22], yet no privilege logs or descriptions of the withheld documents have been produced.” (Separate Statement, p. 7:13-15.)

However, Defendant’s response to RPD No. 22 did not object on the grounds of privilege or even mention non-privileged documents.

Most importantly, Defendant’s response to RPD No. 22 was code compliant.

Under the relevant statute, “[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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230 [emphasis added].)

As shown above, Defendant’s response complied with that requirement.

Accordingly, the request to compel further responses to RPD No. 22 is denied.

The Court sustains Defendant’s overly broad objection to RPD No. 31, which asked Defendant to produce: “All DOCUMENTS relating to the Customer Call Center, including but not limited to, all flow charts, processes, and/or scripts.” (Separate Statement, p. 8:6-12.) The request does not limit the documents requested to those pertaining to the vehicle at issue in this case. Plaintiffs have not shown what relevance documents related to the Customer Call Center but do not concern the Vehicle would have to this case. 

However, Defendant argues in its opposition that it served further responses to the RPD on July 3, 2023.

In further response to RPD No. 31, Defendant stated that it will produce “its guideline documents titled ‘Lemon Law Inquiries,’ ‘Early Warning,’ and ‘Attorney Involved,’ … pursuant to the entry of an appropriate protective order.” (Opposition, declaration of Bryan A. Reynolds (“Reynolds Decl.”), ¶ 12, Exhibit F, pp. 3:28-4:4.)

Therefore, the request to compel further response to RPD No. 31 is denied as moot.

The Court sustains Defendant’s overly broad objection to RPD Nos. 32 and 33, for the same reason it has sustained the objection to RPD No. 31. In RPD No. 32, Plaintiffs asked Defendant to produce: “All DOCUMENTS relating to any Customer Loyalty Program or After Warranty Assistance Program that YOU had in effect during the RELEVANT PERIOD.” (Separate Statement, p. 10:18-24.) In RPD No. 33, they asked Defendant to produce: “All DOCUMENTS related to the Technical Hot Line or other similar Technical Assistance offered to AHM’s authorized dealers.” (Separate Statement, p. 11:15-19.) Like RPD No. 31, RPD Nos. 32 and 33 are not limited to documents concerning the vehicle at issue in this case.

Accordingly, the request to compel further responses to RPD Nos 32 and 33 is denied.

RPD No. 34 asked Defendant to produce the following: “All DOCUMENTS related to efforts by YOU to reduce the number of repeat repair attempts for a customer.” (Separate Statement, p. 12:8-10.)

The Court agrees with Defendant’s objection that the RPD No. 34 is vague. It is unclear what “documents related to efforts to reduce the number of repeat repair attempts for a customer” means. The request is also unduly burdensome because Defendant would have to guess what “related to efforts to reduce repair attempt” means, and then find and produce all documents, of all customers that request fits, regardless of whether those customers experienced the same issues Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint or the documents contain information protected by the right to privacy. Plaintiffs have not shown good cause to compel further response to RPD No. 34.

Accordingly, the request to compel further response to RPD No. 34 is denied.

RPD No. 35 asked Defendant to produce: “All DOCUMENTS related to efforts by [it] to reduce the number of reacquired vehicles.” (Separate Statement, p. 14:5-6.)

The Court agrees with Defendant that RPD No. 35 is vague and ambiguous. (Separate Statement, p. 14:8.) It is unclear what all documents “related” to Defendant’s “efforts to reduce the number of reacquired vehicles” means. The Court also finds the request overly broad and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to a specific type of reacquired vehicles (e.g., those vehicles that are reacquired because they contain defects).

Accordingly, the request to compel further response to RPD No. 35 is denied.

The request to compel further response to further response to RPD No. 36 is also denied because it is overly broad. The request asked Defendant to produce: “All DOCUMENTS related to repeat repair procedures for remedying customer concerns.” (Separate Statement, p. 15:5-6.) As with the RPD Nos. 34 and 35, RPD No. 36 is unlimited in scope and seeks all documents “related” to repeat repair procedures for remedying customer concerns regardless of whether those documents concern the defects Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint or contain information protected by the right to privacy.

RPD Nos. 37, 38, and 39 asked Defendant to produce the following.

·       RPD No. 37: All DOCUMENTS evidencing, relating, or referring to complaints by owners of the same year, make, model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE regarding any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.

·       RPD No. 38: All surveys, reports, summaries, or other DOCUMENTS in which owners of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE have reported to YOU problems with any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.

·       RPD No. 39: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, relate or refer to the numbers of owners of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE who have complained of any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.

The Court does not find RPD Nos. 37, 38, and 39 unduly burdensome so long as they are limited to customers in California.  Defendant is able to use a reasonable  understanding of “the conditions, defects, or noncomformities” in its search for documents.  Accordingly, the request to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 37, 38, and 39 is denied.

RPD Nos. 46, 47, and 48 seek production of all documents “reflecting any and all information” that led to the issuance of certain recalls. (Separate Statement, pp. 22:13-16 [“All documents reflecting any and all information that led to the issuance of Recall 19- 096:6GP00, including but not limited to customer complaints, failure rates, amounts paid for repairs, technical hotline or technical assistance inquiries”]; 26:3-6 [“All documents reflecting any and all information that led to the issuance of Recall 19- 096:6GP00, including but not limited to customer complaints, failure rates, amounts paid for repairs, technical hotline or technical assistance inquiries”]; 27:7-10 [“All documents reflecting any and all information that led to the issuance of Recall 20- 050:6RD00, including but not limited to customer complaints, failure rates, amounts paid for repairs, technical hotline or technical assistance inquiries”].)

However, RPD Nos. 46, 47, and 48 do not explain what those recalls entailed (e.g., whether they concerned the same year, model, and make as the Vehicle), and the Complaint does not make any allegations concerning recalls.

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause for compel further response to those requests.

Nevertheless, Defendant argues in its opposition that it served further responses to RPD Nos. 46, 47, and 48. In those further responses, Defendant stated that it will produce its Quality Improvement Sheet representing its root cause internal investigations and analysis reports that correspond to the recall service bulletins pursuant to a protective order. (Opposition, Reynolds Decl., Exhibit F, pp 5:6-15; 6:17-26; 8:1-10.)

Accordingly, the request to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 46, 47, and 48 is denied as moot.

The Court finds that there would have been good cause to compel further response to RPD No. 49 which asked Defendant to produce: “All documents, including emails, reflecting or pertaining to the background investigation and internal analysis (including but not limited to any root cause analysis, failure rates, contributing factors, efficacy rate of repairs, and fixes) into battery concerns in vehicles of the same make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” (Separate Statement, p. 28:11-15.) Contrary to Defendant’s arguments, that request is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, or seeking irrelevant information. The Complaint alleges that the Vehicle contained or developed defects, including repeat battery concerns. (Compl., ¶ 17a.) Therefore, RPD No. 49 seeks relevant information.

Nevertheless, Defendant states in its opposition that it served a further response to RPD No. 49, stating: “Pursuant to a reasonable search and diligent inquiry, AHM has no documents responsive to this request as there has been no investigation and internal analysis into battery concerns in 2019 Honda Odyssey vehicles and no such documents have ever existed.” (Opposition, Reynolds Decl., Exhibit F, p. 9:12-15.) That further response is code-compliant, and the Court cannot compel Defendant to produce documents that do not exist.

Accordingly, the request to compel further response to RPD No. 49 is denied as moot.

RPD No. 50 asked Defendant to produce “All documents, including emails, reflecting or pertaining to the background investigation and internal analysis (including but not limited to any root cause analysis, failure rates, contributing factors, efficacy rate of repairs, and fixes) into repeat battery replacements in vehicles of the same make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” (Separate Statement, p. 29:13-17.)

As with RPD No. 49, the Court finds that there would have been good cause to compel further response to RPD No. 50 because the request seeks relevant information.

However, in further response to RPD No. 50, Defendant stated that after a “reasonable search and diligent inquiry, AHM has no documents responsive to this request as there has been no investigation and internal analysis into repeat battery replacements in 2019 Honda Odyssey vehicles and no such documents have ever existed.” (Opposition, Reynolds Decl., Exhibit F, p. 10:17-20.)

Accordingly, the request to compel further response to RPD No. 50 is denied as moot.

The Court finds good cause to compel further response to RPD Nos. 51, 52, and 53.

RPD No. 51 asked Defendant to produce: “All documents, including emails, reflecting or pertaining to the background investigation and internal analysis (including but not limited to any root cause analysis, failure rates, contributing factors, efficacy rate of repairs, and fixes) into electrical concerns in vehicles of the same make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” (Separate Statement, p. 30:15-19.)

RPD No. 52: “All documents, including emails, reflecting or pertaining to the background investigation and internal analysis (including but not limited to any root cause analysis, failure rates, contributing factors, efficacy rate of repairs, and fixes) into dash turning on when vehicle is off concerns in vehicles of the same make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” (Separate Statement, p. 31:17-21.)

RPD No. 53: “All documents, including emails, reflecting or pertaining to the background investigation and internal analysis (including but not limited to any root cause analysis, failure rates, contributing factors, efficacy rate of repairs, and fixes) into sliding doors struggle to close concerns in vehicles of the same make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” (Separate Statement, p. 32:19-23.)

The Court finds that RPD Nos. 51, 52, and 53 are not vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, or harassing, as limited by the Court:  Defendant will need to search for responsive documents except that (contrary to the terms of the request) it does not need to include email communications in its search. These requests seek relevant information because the Complaint alleges that the Vehicle contained or developed defects, including dash turning on randomly, keyless error on screen, and sliding doors struggle to close, among other issues. RPD Nos. 51, 52, and 53 seek production of documents concerning “electrical,” “dash turning on when vehicle is off,” and “sliding doors struggle to close” concerns in vehicles of the same make and model as the Vehicle. (Compl., ¶ 17a.) Therefore, given the Complaint’s allegations, the requests seek information that is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

In its opposition, Defendant does not argue or show that it produced further responses to RPD Nos. 51 and 52.

Although Defendant argues that it served further response to RPD No. 53 arguing that it will allow partial production of documents requested in that request. (Opposition, Reynolds Decl., Exhibit F, pp. 11:21-12:1 [“The production will be allowed in part and AHM will also produce safety recall service bulletin 18-128 directed to power sliding door rear latches, which does not apply to the SUBJECT VEHICLE because it is not included in the service bulletin campaign, and service bulletin 19-028 directed to power sliding door reverses direction when closing, which does not apply to the SUBJECT VEHICLE because it is excluded from the Vehicle Identification Range to which the bulletin applies”].) The Court finds that further response insufficient because as explained above, RPD No. 53 seeks relevant information. The request is also reasonably limited in scope to documents concerning vehicles of the same make and model as the Vehicle.

Accordingly, the request to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 51, 52, and 53 is granted.

E.    Sanctions

Subject to certain exceptions inapplicable here, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)  Because both parties have prevailed on some requests and has not prevailed on others, the Court does not order sanctions on this motion.