Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV00928, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00928, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00928 Hearing Date: February 7, 2024 Dept: C

Tirado v. irvine auto, et al.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00928

HEARING: 2/7/24 @ 9:30 AM

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED in part with the limitations set forth below and DENIED in part.

2. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Paloma Tirado (Plaintiff) moves to compel further responses to her Requests for Production (set one) and seeks sanctions.

Background

On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant Volkswagen Group of America (Defendant) for alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Act for failure to repair or repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle and against Irvine Auto Retail II, Inc. (Irvine Auto) for negligent repair.

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).)

Meet and Confer

The Court finds that the parties adequately met and conferred.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 18, 33-41, and 45-46. Defendant initially provided documents to Requests Nos. 33-35. Defendant stated it did not have responsive documents to Request No. 37. Defendant objected to Requests Nos. 18, 36, 38-41 and 45-46 and refused to produce any responsive documents.

Defendant’s objections to Request No. 18 are overruled, and Defendant is compelled to provide a further response. The documents are within the scope of discovery as discovery is broad and includes information that is admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223-224.) Request No. 18 seeks the Franchise Agreement between Defendant and the dealership that sold Plaintiff the vehicle. Defendant objected on the grounds that the Request sought information outside the scope of discovery and privileged material and that the Request was not reasonably particularized. First, The Request is reasonably particularized because it is limited to the Franchise Agreement. Second, Defendant has not made any showing as to what privileged material it contends that the Request seeks. Finally, The Franchise Agreement between Defendant and the dealership is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence because it may contain relevant evidence regarding the agency relationship between Defendant and the dealership. Thus, Defendant is ordered to provide a further response to Request No. 18.

Defendant’s responses to Requests Nos. 33-35 are code compliant because they state that Defendant shall provide responsive documents. Requests Nos. 33-35 seek TSBs and Field Service Actions related to similar vehicles. To the extent that Defendant has only provided a list of TSBs and Field Service Actions, Defendant is ordered to produce the relevant TSBs and Field Service Actions.

Defendant’s objections to Request No. 36 are overruled, and Defendant is compelled to provide a further response. Request No. 36 seeks the Special Service Messages related to similar vehicles. Defendant objected on the grounds that the Request sought information outside the scope of discovery and trade secrets and that the Request was not reasonably particularized. First, the Request is reasonably particularized because it is limited to the Special Service Messages. Second, the parties have entered into a Protective Order and if Defendant believes that it is insufficient, it should move for a protective order instead of opposing this Motion. Finally, Special Service Messages related to similar vehicles are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence because they may contain or lead to relevant evidence regarding the alleged defects and Defendant’s knowledge of the defects. Thus, Defendant is ordered to provide a further response to Request No. 36.

Requests Nos. 37-41 seek codes related to similar vehicles and customer complaints and labor operations codes from 2017 to present. These requests are overbroad because they seek information not related to Plaintiff’s vehicle. Therefore, these requests will be limited to codes related to repairs made to Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 37-41 with the codes applicable to repairs made to Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Requests Nos. 45-46 seek documents related to similar vehicles and customer complaints. These requests are overbroad because they seek documents related to vehicles worldwide. Therefore, these requests will be limited repairs and customer complaints concerning 2020 Volkswagen Tiguans sold in California. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 45-46 as to 2020 Volkswagen Tiguans sold in California.

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. (CCP §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h), 2033.290(d).)

Defendant acted with substantial justification in opposing Plaintiff’s overbroad requests and provided code compliant responses to several requests. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED in part with the limitations set forth above and DENIED in part. Defendant is ordered to serve its responses within 30 days of this Order. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.