Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01086, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01086, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01086 Hearing Date: February 7, 2024 Dept: C

Rincon, et al. v. American honda

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01086

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

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

2. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiffs Salvador Rincon and Florencia Salazar Matlala (Plaintiffs) move to compel further responses to her Requests for Production (set one) and seek sanctions.

Background

On October 24, 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 Plaintiff’s vehicle and Fraudulent Concealment.

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

Plaintiffs seek to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 20, 53, 55, and 61. Defendant produced a further response to Request No. 61; thus, Plaintiffs’ Motion is moot as to that Request.

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. 20 seeks the Operative Dealership Agreement between Defendant and the dealership that sold Plaintiffs the vehicle. Defendant argues that the financial information in the Operative Dealership Agreement is proprietary, and Plaintiffs can obtain information regarding the agency relationship between Defendant and the dealership by way of Special Interrogatory which would be less intrusive. Further, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs can obtain information regarding repairs sent from the dealership to the manufacturer through the warranty documents. However, Plaintiffs are making a claim for fraudulent concealment and information regarding the dealership’s reporting of repair of similar vehicles could lead to admissible evidence and the parties have filed a protective order. Thus, the Operative Dealership Agreement is discoverable, however, Defendant may redact any proprietary financial information from the Agreement or the parties may agree to production of a sample agreement. Thus, Defendant is ordered to provide a further response to Request No. 20.

Request No. 53 seeks documents related to similar vehicles and customer complaints. This request is overbroad because it seeks documents related to vehicles worldwide. Therefore, this request will be limited repairs and customer complaints concerning 2019 Honda CR-Vs sold in California. Defendant is ordered to provide a further response to Request No. 53 as to 2019 Honda CR-Vs sold in California.

Request No. 55 seeks all document produced in the matter of Kathleen Cadena, et al., v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., et al, United States District Court, Central District of California Case No. 2:18-cv-04007-MWF-PJW.

Request No. 55 is overly broad as it seeks all documents produced in a separate class action lawsuit and cannot easily be limited. This type of request is not tailored at all to this case. While some documents may be relevant, there are undoubtedly many documents which are in no way relevant to this action. The court has no obligation to modify discovery requests to make them entirely proper. (Deaile v. Gen. Tele. Co. of Cal. (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 841, 850-53.) Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for a further response to Request No. 55 is denied.

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. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ 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. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED.