Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV00812, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00812, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00812 Hearing Date: August 9, 2023 Dept: C

Gonzalez v. Honda Motor

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00812

HEARING: 8/9/23 @ 10:30 AM

Plaintiffs Jeanette Gonzalez and Porfirio Gonzalez’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED.

Defendant to give NOTICE.

Plaintiffs Jeanette Gonzalez and Porfirio Gonzalez (Plaintiffs) moves to compel further responses to his requests for production of documents pursuant to CCP § 2031.310.

Background

On September 9, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Defendant) for alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Act for failure to repair or repurchase Plaintiffs’ 2019 Honda HR-V EX (Subject Vehicle). Plaintiffs allege that the Subject Vehicle was defective and Defendant has been unable to repair the vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts and did not repurchase it.

Meet and Confer

The court finds that the parties adequately met and conferred prior to filing this motion.

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

Requests Nos. 22, 23, and 26-30 seek documents regarding evaluating vehicle repurchases. Requests Nos. 45-46 seek documents regarding other similar vehicles. Requests Nos. 47-48 seek documents regarding third-party dispute resolution.

Here, Defendant has properly responded to Requests Nos. 22, 23, and 26-30. Defendant responded that it does not have any responsive documents except those protected by the attorney-client privilege. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant must be compelled to produce a privilege log as to the documents it contends are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Defendant states that the only documents it is withholding on the basis of privilege were those created after the filing of the lawsuit. The court will not compel Defendant to create a privilege log as to any of Plaintiffs’ requests.

Requests Nos. 45-48 seek documents that are outside the scope of discovery. The requests seek documents related to other vehicles similar to Plaintiffs’ and other customer complaints. Here, the only cause of action in the pleadings is for violation of the Song-Beverly Act. The basis of Song-Beverly is that the Subject Vehicle had defects and nonconformities and (1) Defendant was not able to conform the Subject Vehicle to the applicable warranties within a reasonable and failed to replace the Subject Vehicle after a reasonable number of repair opportunities or make restitution; (2) Defendant failed to service or repair the Vehicle so as to conform to the applicable warranties within 30 days; (3) Defendant failed to make available to its authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period; and (4) the Subject Vehicle was not suitable for its intended use due to the defects that manifested. Thus, information pertaining to other vehicles is not necessary for Plaintiffs to prove their case. Additionally, such requests would be unduly burdensome on Defendant because compliance would involve searching numerous documents related to hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles world-wide.

Plaintiffs’ reliance on Donlen is misplaced. While Donlen discusses admissibility of evidence, it does so in the context of a motion seeking a judgment not withstanding a verdict and a new trial, which were granted due to the trial court’s ruling on the defendant’s motions in limine. Further, Donlen does not address the underlying merits of a discovery request that would make it applicable to this current motion. Further, the motion in limines that were in question in Donlen were related to (1) the admittance of evidence showing a non-warranty repair on the plaintiff’s vehicle occurred and (2) evidence of other vehicles that had the same type of malfunction, which were included in the trial. However, unlike the case at hand, the evidence of other vehicles was an expert’s opinion where the expert contacted and the appellate court held that the evidence did not concern “simply other vehicles,” but that the testimony applied equally to the plaintiff’s vehicle. (See Donlen, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154-55.) Thus, Donlen is distinguished from the issue at hand which concerns the production of documents for hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles worldwide at the discovery stage.

Doppes concerns a trial court’s decision to not impose terminating sanctions against a defendant for a misuse of the discovery process. The issue presented with the motor vehicle in Doppes was “an obnoxious odor in the interior.” (Doppes, supra 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 971; see also id. at 972.) The causes of action to which discovery was needed were violation of the Song-Beverly Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and fraud. (Id. at 971.) The appellate court found that the trial court’s failure to impose terminating sanction was an abuse of discretion in the context of the Doppes case which included four orders compelling the documents at issue, the discovery referee’s findings, defendant’s expert’s failure to state the truth at a Better Business Bureau hearing, defendant’s expert’s failure to be forthcoming in his deposition, the imposition of monetary sanctions, and requests for sanctions at trial. (Id. at 993-94.) The discovery abuse led to a default judgment against the defendant on the fraud cause of action only. (Id. at 996-97.) The Court notes that the number of files at issue in Doppes were 30-40 files. (Id. at 994.) The holding by the appellate court in Doppes makes clear that the issue of other vehicles concerns only the fraud cause of action. Further, as mentioned, ante, the wording of this request is broad enough to encompass vehicles of the same year, make, and model world-wide as opposed to 30-40 files. Thus, Doppes, too, is distinguished.

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that evidence of defects in similar vehicles would support a finding of civil penalties, in that it would evidence that the alleged failure to repair or repurchase was “willful.” Plaintiffs contend that widespread defects in similar vehicles would evidence that Defendant had knowledge that such defects are common. However, the issue in this case is whether Plaintiffs’ vehicle was defective and whether Defendant failed to repair and repurchase Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Documents regarding other vehicles or complaints are not relevant to these issues. Thus, Requests Nos. 45-48 seek documents that are outside the scope of discovery. Therefore, no further responses are ordered.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs Jeanette Gonzalez and Porfirio Gonzalez’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED.