Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00733, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00733    Hearing Date: May 11, 2023    Dept: C

SOSA v. UAG CERRITOS I, LLC

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00733

HEARING:  05/11/23

#9

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) is GRANTED in part.

Moving Party to give Notice.

This lemon law action was filed by Plaintiffs JAZMIN SOSA and ROSENDO MORENO DE LA CRUZ (“Plaintiffs”) on August 19, 2022.

On May 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion. Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s further responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19-32, 33, 37-41, and 45-46.

On April 28, 2023 (prior to the date the instant Motion was filed), Defendant filed it’s Opposition. In Opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s requests are overbroad and seek irrelevant information. Defendant further indicates that supplemental documents responsive to the subject requests were served on March 17, 2023.

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).) 

Plaintiffs allege that their 2018 Chevrolet Silverado vehicle suffers from various defects, and that Defendant has been unable to repair the vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts; that Defendant has failed to repurchase the Subject Vehicle despite its knowledge that Plaintiffs’ vehicle suffers from the defects and nonconformities.  

The Court finds that Plaintiff adequately met and conferred prior to filing the instant Motion.

The Court finds that some of Plaintiff’s requests, as drafted, are unreasonably overbroad. For instance, many of the RPD’s at issue seek ALL DOCUMENTS—even those related to vehicles of a different make, model, and year. In the interests of judicial efficiency, rather than denying the Motion and requiring Plaintiffs to re-draft more narrowly tailored Requests, the Court issues the following Order: The Motion is GRANTED in part. Within 30 days of this Order, Defendant shall provide copies of the following documents, which have not already been produced, that are in its possession, custody, and/or control to Plaintiff:

i.             Purchase or lease contracts concerning the Subject Vehicle, including any associated documents reflecting original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) or aftermarket equipment installed at the dealership, extended limited warranties (“ELW”) or service contracts, and any other writings signed by the Plaintiff at the point of sale.

ii.            Work orders, repair orders, and invoices (including accounting and warranty versions) for any maintenance, service and repair activity concerning the Subject Vehicle. 

iii.           Rental car or loaner agreements regarding alternate transportation provided during service or repair visits concerning the Subject Vehicle.

iv.           Records of communications with dealer personnel, and/or factory representatives and Defendant’s call center or customer assistance personnel concerning the Subject Vehicle.

v.            Warranty Claims submitted to and/or approved by Defendant concerning the Subject Vehicle.

vi.           Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual or similar policies or claim-handling procedures published by Defendant from the date the Subject Vehicle was purchased or leased to the date the lawsuit was filed.

vii.         Workshop Manual specifying diagnosis and repair procedures for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

viii.        Defendant’s written statements of policy and/or procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase or replacement pursuant to “Lemon Law” claims, including ones brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date the Subject Vehicle was purchased or leased to the date the lawsuit was filed.

ix.           A list or compilation of customer complaints in Defendant’s electronically stored information database that are substantially similar to the alleged defects claimed by plaintiff, in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. A substantially similar customer complaint would be the same nature of reported symptom, malfunction, dashboard indicator light, or other manifestation of a repair problem as the description listed in any work order or repair order for the subject vehicle, rother than routine or scheduled maintenance items. The list provided by Defendant may be in chart or spreadsheet format, and shall include the VIN, date of repair visit, dealership or other reporting location, and text of the other customers’ reporter complaint, but shall not include the other customers’ names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, or other personal identifying information.

x.            Technical Service Bulletins and Recall Notices for vehicles purchased or leased in California for the same year, make, and model of the Subject Vehicle.

xi.           Copies of any repair instruction, bulletin, or other diagnostic/repair procedure identified in any of the repair order/invoice records for the Subject Vehicle.

Sanctions are DENIED.