Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV00625, Date: 2023-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00625, Date: 2023-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00625 Hearing Date: September 13, 2023 Dept: C

Arevalo v. honda

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00625

HEARING: 9/13/23 @ 9:30 AM

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Their Requests for Production is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Bertila Del Carmen Arevalo move Defendant’s further response to Request for Production (set two) pursuant to CCP § 2031.310.

Background

On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant American Honda Motor Co. (Defendant) for alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Act for failure to repair or repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Legal Standard

CCP § 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b).)

Discussion

Here Plaintiff is seeking further responses to Requests Nos. 1-39. Plaintiff’s motion is moot as to Requests Nos. 7, 9, 10, 13, 18, 20, 21, 24, 29, 31, 32, and 35 because Defendant has submitted supplemental responses prior to the hearing.

Defendant properly responded to Requests Nos. 1 and 4 because they are duplicative of previously propounded Requests. "A party who fails to meet time limits for moving to compel answers to discovery after first discovery was propounded cannot avoid consequences of delay by propounding same discovery again." [Cite.] Plaintiff’s Request No. 1 asked for “All DOCUMENTS referencing, evidencing, and/or relating to YOUR policies, procedures, or guidelines for determining whether a vehicle is eligible for a vehicle repurchase under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act” which added “under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act” to Request No. 23 of Set One. Thus, Request No. 1 is duplicative of Request No. 23 of Set One. Plaintiff’s Request No. 4 of Set Two and Set One both asked for all documents in possession of Defendant’s customer relation center. Thus, Request No. 4 of Set Two is duplicative of Request No. 4 of Set One. Therefore, Plaintiff’s requests to compel further responses to Requests 1 and 4 are denied.

Defendant properly responded to Requests Nos. 3, 6, 16, 19, 27, 36, and 38 because it stated that no responsive documents have ever existed.

Requests Nos. 2 and 5 seek documents related to Defendant’s lemon law policies and procedures. Requests Nos. 12, 15, and 17 seek documents related to the alleged HVAC defects in similar vehicles. Requests Nos. 23, 26, and 28 seek documents related to the alleged engine defects in similar vehicles. Requests Nos. 34, 37, and 39 seek documents related to the alleged suspension defects in similar vehicles.

Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 2 and 5 because these requests seek documents within the scope of discovery. Defendant produced no documents to these requests. The Requests are overbroad as to time. However, Defendant’s lemon law policies and procedures from the date of purchase to the filing of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit are within the scope of discovery because they are relevant to proving whether Defendant followed its policies and procedures as to Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Therefore, Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 2 and 5 with the limitation that it shall produce responsive documents published from the date of purchase to the date of filing.

Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 12, 15, 17, 23, 26, 28, 34, 37, and 39 because these requests seek documents within the scope of discovery. Defendant produced no documents to these requests. The Requests are overbroad as to scope because they seek documents related to vehicles outside of California. Vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s could reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding Defendant’s knowledge of defects similar to those experienced by Plaintiff and Defendant’s willful refusal to replace or repurchase the vehicle. Therefore, Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 33 and 37 with the limitation that it shall produce responsive documents for California vehicles.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Their Requests for Production is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth above. Defendant is to provide further responses within 20 days of this Order.