Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00916, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00916    Hearing Date: November 28, 2023    Dept: C

Martha Altamira vs Champion Dodge, et al.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00916

HEARING:  11/28/23 @ 9:30 a.m.

#2

TENTATIVE ORDER 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (set one) is GRANTED in part.

Moving party to give NOTICE.

Background

This is a lemon law action involving a purchase of a 2020 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited, VIN: 1C4HJXEN4LW223074 (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff filed her Complaint on September 30, 2022, alleging causes of action for breach of express and implied warranty under Song-Beverly. (Complaint at pp. 3-4.)

On January 25, 2023, Plaintiff propounded a first set of discovery including Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, Requests for Admissions, and a set of Form Interrogatories. (Lopez Decl., at ¶ 3; Ex. A.) FCA timely served its responses to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery on March 1, 2023. (Id., at ¶ 4; Ex B.) FCA filed supplemental responses, but did not provide such responses to interrogatories 25, 31, and 45-48. (Id., at ¶ 7.)

Analysis

A.   Meet and Confer Requirement

On April 14, 2023, the parties telephonically met and conferred. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. C.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff satisfied the meet and confer element.

B.   Separate Statement 

A motion to compel further responses requires a separate statement.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) Plaintiff properly filed separate statements. 

C.   Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production. 

CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that on receipt of a response to a request for production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:¿¿ 

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.¿¿ 

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.¿¿ 

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.¿¿ 

In responding to a demand for production of documents, a party must either provide one of the following: (1) a legally adequate statement of compliance; (2) a statement of inability to comply; or (3) an objection to the particular demand.¿ (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).) If any objections are made, they must: (1) “[i]dentify with particularity any document … falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made”; and (2) “[s]et forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.”¿ (Id., § 2031.240, subd. (b).)¿¿ 

Discussion

To prevail, a party moving for an order compelling further responses to a document production demand must first offer facts demonstrating “good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.”¿ (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)¿ If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure.¿ (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

The discovery sought by this motion relates to FCA’s policies and procedures related to its training and compliance with the Song-Beverly Act and information regarding repair rates for 2020 Jeep Wrangler vehicles.

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has failed to provide Code-compliant responses and documents responsive to Plaintiffs Requests for Production, including but not limited to Nos. 25, 31, and 45-48. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 7.)

Defendants object to Nos. 25 and 31 because training on these topics is conducted by FCA’s counsel for the purpose of providing legal advice, and the contents of such training are privileged.  Request No. 25 seeks “all training given by YOU to PERSONS tasked with evaluating eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act from 2021 to the present.”  Request No. 31 seeks “YOUR policies and procedures for proactively complying with the Song-Beverly Act in California by offering a repurchase of a qualifying vehicle without a consumer request to do so.”  The court determines that these requests are within the proper scope of discovery, but only for materials used or in effect since 2022 and used by employees in California.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part as to Nos. 25 and 31. 

Nos. 45-48 seek documents related to repairs per thousand vehicles for similar vehicles and the symptoms and components with the highest repairs per thousand. These requests are overbroad because they seek documents related to vehicles worldwide. Therefore, these requests will be limited repairs and the symptoms and components concerning 2020 Jeep Wranglers sold in California. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 45-48 as to 2020 Jeep Wranglers sold in California.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part as to Nos. 45-48.

Sanctions

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or demand for production of documents unless the party subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).)

The Court finds that Defendant acted with substantial justification.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to His Requests for Production (set one) is GRANTED in part as to No. 25, 31, and 45-48. 

Moving party to give NOTICE.