Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV01921, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01921    Hearing Date: October 10, 2023    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Jesus Ibarra moves to compel further responses to RFP  (Set One) Nos. 16, 19, 20 and 21.

Plaintiff Ibarra’s motion to compel further responses is moot as to RFP Nos. 16, 19 and 20 and granted as to RFP No. 21.  Defendant to serve further response to RFP No. 21 as set forth below within 10 days.

Background

          Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant FCA US LLC pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act (Civil Code §1790-1795.8).  On October 18, 2020, Plaintiff purchased a 2020 Jeep Renegade (the “Vehicle”) manufactured or distributed by Defendant FCA.  After purchase and during the warranty period, the Vehicle allegedly contained or developed defects, including, but not limited to defective ignition system.  The operative complaint alleges causes of action for (1) violation of Civil Code §1793.2; (2) violation of Civil Code §1793.2; (3) violation of Civil Code §1793.2; and (4) breach of express written warranty under Civil Code §§1791.2(a) and 1794.

Legal Standard

          Song-Beverly Act

          The Song Beverly Act “is a remedial measure intended for protection of consumers and should be given a construction consistent with that purpose.”  (Id.)  To

succeed on a claim brought under the Act, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving, by a

preponderance of the evidence, several elements, including nonconformity of a vehicle that substantially impaired its use, value or safety; presentation of vehicle to manufacturer or authorized representative for repair; and failure to repair the defect after a reasonable number of attempts.  (Ibrahim v. Ford Motor Co. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 878, 886-887.)  A buyer may also be entitled to a civil penalty of up to two times the actual damages upon a showing that the manufacturer willfully failed to abide by any of its obligations under the Act.  (Civ. C. §1794(c).)

          Scope of Discovery and Discovery Obligations in Song-Beverly Act litigation

CCP § 2017.010

Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.

CCP §2031.220

A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.

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.

CCP § 2031.310

(a) 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.

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following:

          (1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.

          (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

          (3) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.

(c) 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.

… (h) Except as provided in subdivision (j), 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.

          The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery.  (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)  Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure.  (Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996, 2nd Dist.) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)         

          “Relevant evidence is defined in Evidence Code section 210 as evidence ‘having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.’ The test of relevance is whether the evidence tends logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference to establish material facts.  The trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence, but lacks discretion to admit irrelevant evidence.”  (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4^th 138, 148 (evidence of post-warranty repairs relevant to action based on warranty repairs because they could demonstrate that vehicle was not repaired to conform to warranty during warranty period.)

          In Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4^th 967, plaintiff alleged violation of the Song Beverly Act based on the defendants’ failure to repair, repurchase, or replace a Bentley that had an obnoxious odor in the interior.  (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4^th at 971.).  The following discovery requests were deemed “highly relevant” and failure to readily produce them prior to trial should have resulted in terminating sanctions: 

“all documents relating to (1) customer complaints concerning the rust inhibitor used on the 2002 Bentley Arnage; (2) all notices to Bentley dealers for the period 2001 to date concerning the rust inhibitor used on the Bentley Arnage; (3) all warranty repairs during the period of January 2002 to date of the Bentley Arnage related to the rust inhibitor used on the  vehicle; (4) all customer complaints of a wax oil smell caused by the rust inhibitor on the 2002 Bentley Arnage; and (5) vehicle tests conducted on the 2002 model year Arnage to confirm whether there was a wax oil smell arising from the vehicle's rust inhibitor.”

Discussion

          Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 16, 19, 20 and 21.  Plaintiff argues these RFPs are relevant to Defendant’s prior knowledge of the Engine Defect that forms the basis of Plaintiff’s Song-Beverly Act claims and Defendant’s knowledge that it could not repair the defect.   Plaintiff argues the subject RFPs pertain to Defendant’s internal investigations and assessments regarding 1) whether earlier technical service bulletins (“TSB”), recalls, or campaigns were unsuccessful; (2) what considerations were accounted for in updating the technical procedures; and (3) what types of failures were observed by Defendant.  Plaintiff argues Defendant’s responses were not code-compliant and contained unmeritorious, boilerplate objections.  Plaintiff argues Defendant’s supplemental production of documents on July 25, 2023 did not include any documents concerning Defendant’s investigations and analysis leading up to the issuance of a particular TSB, recall, campaign, or warranty adjustment.  Plaintiff argues the requested documents are also relevant to the civil penalty under the Act.

          In opposition, Defendant argues the motion is moot because supplemental responses were served.  Defendant argues it has responded to RFP Nos. 19-21 with a statement of full compliance and to RFP No. 16 with a statement of an inability to comply because requested documents do not exist and have never existed.  Defendant argues the discovery in this case is disproportionate to the amount in controversy and immaterial to the case.  Defendant argues Plaintiff is not entitled to class action discovery.  Defendant argues Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause for the requested discovery. 

          On reply, Plaintiff asks that the Court exercise its discretion and review the supplemental discovery responses for sufficiency.  Plaintiff argues the supplemental responses are still non-compliant.  Plaintiff argues he has established good cause for production.  For example, Plaintiff argues he has discovered multiple TSBs concerning the exact abnormal oil consumption problem described by Plaintiff, as well as two National Highway Traffic Safety Administration cases investigating the “failure of the engine to start” problem described by Plaintiff.  Plaintiff argues the existence of these TSBs necessarily means there were internal investigations on the same problem. 

          After review of the supplemental responses provided by Defendant on September 28, 2023, the Court deems the motion moot as to RFP Nos. 16, 19 and 20:

(1) Defendant’s supplemental response to RFP No. 16 is a statement of inability to comply despite diligent search and reasonable inquiry.  The response is code-compliant per CCP §2031.230.

(2) Defendant’s supplemental responses to RFP Nos. 19 and 20 are statements of full compliance.  The responses are code-complaint per CCP §2031.220. 

          Defendants’ supplemental response to RFP No. 21 is neither a statement of full compliance nor a statement of inability to comply.  Instead, the supplemental response to RFP No. 21 is an improper combination of both.  The supplemental response to RFP No. 21 does not comply with either CCP §2031.220 or §2031.230.  The motion is therefore granted as to RFP No. 21. 

          However, Defendants’ objection to a request for searches of electronic mail on the subject of RFP No. 21 as burdensome is well-taken.  Defendants need not search for electronic mail in response to this request and may exclude such documents from its response.

          Plaintiff Ibarra’s motion to compel further responses is moot as to RFP Nos. 16, 19 and 20 and granted as to RFP No. 21 as set forth above.  Defendant is ordered to serve further responses within 10 days.  No sanctions were requested.