Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2022-00045849-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 07, 2023

12/08/2023  09:30:00 AM  C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00045849-CU-BC-CTL SANCHEZ VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 07/05/2023

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents is GRANTED, in part and DENIED, in part.

This is a single-vehicle Lemon Law (Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act /fraud action involving a 2019 Honda CR-V. The alleged issue with the vehicle involves the 'Collision Mitigation Braking System™'.

On February 26, 2023, Plaintiffs propounded a set of written discovery, including 98 Requests for Production (at issue in this motion). AHM claims it ultimately produced well over 1200 documents.

After extensions filed and 'meet and confer' letters were exchanged, plaintiff filed motion July 5, 2023.

Plaintiffs seek further responses to ten requests including Nos. 20, 53-55, 77-78, 92-93, and 97-98. As an initial matter, AHM proceeded to serve further responses to Request Nos. 20, 77-78, 92-93, and 97-98, fully addressing Plaintiffs' concerns, rendering Plaintiffs' Motion moot as to these requests. (The opposition indicates that the responses will be provided. The reply concedes further responses were received.) Plaintiffs' Motion is moot as to Request Nos. 20, 77-78, 92-93, and 97-98. This is largely conceded by plaintiff in the reply. (While plaintiff argues that Response 20 is still not 'code compliant,' the parties are to meet and confer over deficiencies in requests for which documents have been produced after the motion was filed.) The Court limits its ruling to issues to which no responsive documents have been produced.

Requests 53 and 54 GRANT Plaintiffs' Request Nos. 53-54 seek documents relating to similar customer complaints and warranty repairs.

AHM argues that the requests directed to customer complaints and warranty repairs on other vehicles are irrelevant to the issues in the case because they seek documents and information beyond the Subject Vehicle.

Courts have held that evidence of recurring problems in other vehicles is highly relevant when it involves the same or similar parts or component systems in Plaintiffs' vehicle. Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, Doppes v. Bentley (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, Johnson v. Ford Motor Company (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191, Lukather v. General Motors, LLC., (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1051, and Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174.

The Donlen Court found that evidence of recurring problems in other vehicles is highly relevant when it involves the same or similar parts or component systems in Plaintiffs' vehicle. In Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2014) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, the Plaintiffs' chief complaints involved the transmission in his Ford F-450. The court held that evidence of problems in other vehicles was admissible because they 'did not concern simply other vehicles [but rather] it was limited to the transmission model Ford installed in Plaintiffs' truck and other trucks.' (Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2014) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2993066  39 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SANCHEZ VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00045849-CU-BC-CTL The expert in Donlen testified that 'he had heard from others that [the transmission] was 'problematic' [and he] also testified of similar problems with other [Ford] transmissions.' (Id.) The Doppes court recognized that evidence of other similar consumer complaints is appropriate for discovery in actions for violations of the Song-Beverly Act and affirmed the order requiring the defendant to produce said evidence. (Doppes v. Bentley (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 976.) Further documents are to be produced within 20 days of notice of this ruling.

Request 55 DENY Request No. 55 asks for all documents produced in an unrelated lawsuit, Kathleen Cadena, et al., v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., et al.) AHM argues that this discovery request is inappropriate, as it is not reasonably particular and Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that each of the documents sought have any relevance to her claims. Cadena involves different year and model vehicles than the Subject Vehicle, and vehicle concerns that the Subject Vehicle in this case never exhibited. The Court agrees.

The request is overbroad. AHM has made a showing that this lawsuit involves a different jurisdiction with different issues. The Cadena case was a class action with a nationwide scope. 'While Plaintiffs' discovery is focused on the Honda Sensing System, Plaintiffs never presented their vehicle for concerns related to the Honda Sensing System. (See Hernandez Decl, at Ex. A.) Instead, the vehicle was presented for concerns with the brake assist system, which is a completely different system with a completely different function than the Honda Sensing System that Plaintiffs allege is at issue in the Cadena case. (See Hernandez Decl, at Ex. B.)' Plaintiffs have failed to show how producing the entirety of discovery in this separate case is relevant to supporting her pre-sale knowledge argument for the fraudulent inducement claim. As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs have not even attempted to argue that there are similar claims pending in Cadena such that the discovery sought might include information that would bear on the knowledge element of the fraudulent inducement claim.

Sanctions The Court awards plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $1500 to be paid within 20 days of notice of this ruling. The Court reduced the sanctions to account for the mixed ruling on the motion.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2993066  39