Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00872, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00872    Hearing Date: May 16, 2023    Dept: C

CHONG v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC.

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00872

HEARING:  5/16/23 @ 9:30 AM

#4

TENTATIVE RULING

I.             Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.’s motion for relief from waiver of objections for Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents (set one) is GRANTED.

II.            Plaintiff Guadarrama’s motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set one is GRANTED in part, as limited by the court below.

Defendant to give NOTICE.

First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s 2016 Infiniti QX80 vehicle suffers from Transmission, Electrical, and Distance Control Assist Defects, and Defendant has been unable to repair the vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts.  The FAC asserts causes of action for:

1.    Violation of CC § 1793.2(d)

2.    Violation of CC § 1793.2(b)

3.    Violation of CC § 1793.2(a)(3)

4.    Violation of CC § 1791.2(a), 1794

5.    Violation of CC § 1791.1, 1794

I.             Relief from Waiver

Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. moves for relief from waiver of objections pursuant to CCP § 2031.300.

The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance… (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (CCP § 2031.300(a).)

The court accepts Defendant’s declaration of inadvertence, attesting that it failed to properly calendar the due date.  (Yu Decl., ¶ 3.)  Upon learning of this mistake, Defendant served verified responses on January 30, 2023.  (Id. at ¶ 6.)

In opposition, Plaintiff articulates no prejudice to the court granting this relief.  Plaintiff contends that an “analogous” CCP § 473 motion would have been untimely.  However, Defendant has not brought the motion under CCP § 473.  Instead, Defendant brought the motion under CCP § 2031.300(a), which contains no deadline.

Accordingly, the motion for relief under CCP § 2031.300 is GRANTED.

II.       Motion to Compel

Plaintiff Chong moves to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set one, pursuant to CCP § 2031.310.

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).) 

Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff’s 2016 Infiniti QX80 vehicle suffers from Transmission, Electrical, and Distance Control Assist Defects, and Defendant has been unable to repair the vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts. 

The discovery at issue concerns:  1) Defendant’s internal investigation and analysis of the Transmission Defects plaguing Plaintiff’s vehicle and establishing Defendant’s knowledge of the defects and refusal to repurchase the vehicle (Nos. 16-19, 21-22, 27, 41, and 56); and 2) Defendant’s warranty and vehicle repurchase policies, procedures, and practices (Nos. 7-8, 10, 34, 37, 42).

The court finds that Plaintiff adequately met and conferred.

The court finds that “all documents” is unreasonably overbroad.  “All documents” is not within the scope of discovery for a Song Beverly Case.  (Krotin v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (1995) 38 Cal. App. 4th 294, 303 - relevant evidence for proving Lemon Law claims consists of service records for plaintiff’s vehicle.)

Further, Plaintiff’s definition of “transmission defect” is overbroad, and is not narrowly tailored to the subject defects in Plaintiff’s repair history.  The use of catch-all language such as “including, but not limited to” is also overbroad.

In the interests of judicial efficiency, rather than denying the motion and requiring Plaintiff 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 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.         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.

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

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

If a party believes any of this information should be subject to a Protective Order, that party shall serve and file a Proposed Protective Order within 5 days of this Order and the parties shall meet and confer as to agreeable language for the same. The default will be the standard Protective Order provided by the LASC in its website.

The information may be provided to the opposing party in electronic form as a PDF at the option of the producing party.

Defendant shall serve verifications with the documents they produce.

Any additional requests for documents may only be propounded by stipulation and/or Court Order (via Motion upon showing good cause).

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED in part, as limited by the court.