Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV38924, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38924    Hearing Date: August 22, 2023    Dept: 72

DEPARTMENT 72

            This is a Beverly-Song act claim.  Plaintiff Daniela Rivera (“Plaintiff”) purchased a vehicle manufactured by Defendant Kia America, Inc. (“Defendant”) on or about November 21, 2020. Plaintiff filed this action on December 14, 2022, alleging causes of action for violation of subdivision (d) of Civil Code section 1793.2, violation of subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1793.2, violation of subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code section 1793.2, breach of express written warranty, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

            On April 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Request Numbers 16 to 21. On June 9, 2023, Defendant opposed the motion. On June 14, 2023, Plaintiff replied.

Motions to Compel Further Responses

A.    Legal Standard

On receipt of a response to a request for production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:

(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(a).)

B.    Analysis

Request for Production Documents, Nos. 16-21

The Court finds that, as a complete objection to the document production requests, Defendant’s objections to these Requests for Production of Documents are without merit. As Plaintiff contends, Defendant’s objections are boilerplate and improper, as they are virtually identical throughout each of Defendant’s responses, and provide no substantive response. (Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516.) Moreover, “where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783; see also Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 901 [objection of “vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible” held to be a “nuisance objection.”]) 

In general, except as limited below, the discovery requests are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. “Any doubts regarding relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98.) In fact, Plaintiff’s Requests seek documents concerning vehicles that are the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle, and that contained the same alleged defects as Plaintiff’s vehicle, which has been deemed a proper area of inquiry by California courts. (See Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 976-979.) To the extent Plaintiff’s discovery requests implicate privileged matters, such as proprietary information, Defendant must provide enough information for Plaintiff to assess Defendant’s assertion of privilege, such as a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240(c)(1).) Defendant did not provide such information or a privilege log.

Furthermore, as for harassing, burdensome, and oppressive, these objections are also without merit, at least as blanket objections. Defendant has not provided any evidence to ascertain that the burden is undue in responding to the requests at all. (W. Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Ct. In & For Los Angeles Cnty. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417; Mead Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 313, 320-321.) Defendant also has not demonstrated an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is not commensurate with the result sought. (Id.) It is also unclear how any of these requests implicate expert witness information or materials, so this objection is also without merit. Additionally, there is no compound objection for requests for production of documents. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010 et seq.)

There are several ways, however, in which requests for production 16-21 are overly broad and unduly burdensome.  The grant of Plaintiff’s motion to compel is subject to the following limitations: 

The definition of “Engine Defect” is enormously broad and seems to include a host of unrelated problems.  Moreover, it improperly includes a catch-all of “any other concern identified in the repair history for the subject 2021 Kia Seltos.”  Plaintiff will need to provide a more practical definition of “Engine Defect” if defendant is to look for the relatively broad categories of documents relating to such an Engine Defect.  Plaintiff will provide a reasonable and narrow definition to Defendant within 48 hours of this ruling.

In response to request for production no. 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21, Defendant need not produce e-mails.  Requiring Defendant to do so imposes an undue burden on Defendant.

Request for production 19 shall be limited to customer complaints for vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.  Defendant must provide further responses and responsive documents within 30 days of today subject to the ruling above.  Plaintiff to provide notice.