Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01249, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01249, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01249 Hearing Date: February 6, 2024 Dept: C

Yesenia Garcia, et al. vs American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Case No.: 22NWCV01249

Hearing Date: 2.06.24 @ 9:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth below.

Moving party to give notice.

Background

This is a lemon law case. Plaintiffs YESENIA GARCIA and ARMANDO GARCIA (“Plaintiff”) was the purchaser of a 2020 Honda Pilot (the “Subject Vehicle”), which was distributed and warranted by Defendant AMERICAN HONDA NORTH AMERICA, INC. (“Defendant”).

Legal Standard

A party may make a demand for production of documents and propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).) The demand for production of documents is not limited by number, but the request must comply with the formatting requirements in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030.

The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service of a demand, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.070, subd. (a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070, subd. (a) - (b).)

If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production or interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

Discussion

Request No. 20

· The operative dealership agreement, if any, on the date of sale of the SUBJECT VEHICLE between YOU and the dealership that sold the SUBJECT VEHICLE to Plaintiffs.

Plaintiff argues that the operative dealership agreement is relevant to prove the agency relationship between the manufacturer and Dealership and the requisite duty on behalf of the manufacturer to disclose the information of the defect. Defendant argues that the agreement contains confidential, commercially sensitive, or proprietary information. The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff has less intrusive means to establish an agency relationship than to compel disclosure of the entire dealership agreement. Defendant is ORDERED to provide Plaintiff with a sample and/or redacted agreement which contains all relevant terms without disclosing confidential financial information.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further response to No. 20 is GRANTED in part.

Request 27-28

· All Technical Service Bulletins which have been issued for the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

· All DOCUMENTS which evidence or discuss YOUR decision to issue the Technical Service Bulletins for the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

These requests are overbroad because they seek documents unrelated to the Subject Vehicle. Therefore, these requests will be limited to Technical Service Bulletins relating to the defects alleged to be present within the Subject Vehicle.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to Nos. 27-28 is GRANTED in part.

Request 55

· All DOCUMENTS produced by YOU in discovery 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.

The Court finds this request to be overbroad. The Court determines that production of the requested documents will require Defendant to produce confidential information and will not reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further response to No. 55 is DENIED.

Request 56-60, 66, 71-73

· No. 56: The organizational structure for the engineers that developed the software for the HONDA SENSING system from 2014 to present. “HONDA SENSING” refers to the Collision Mitigation Braking System (CMBS), Road Departure Mitigation System (RDM), Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC), Traffic Sign Recognition System, Lane Keeping Assist System (LKAS), and Millimeter-Wave Radar sensor utilized on Honda vehicles.

· No. 57: The organizational structure for the engineers that tested the software for the HONDA SENSING system from 2014 to present.

· No. 58: The organizational structure for the engineers that released the software for the HONDA SENSING system from 2014 to present.

· No. 59: The software requirements for the HONDA SENSING system from 2014 to present.

· No. 60: The software specifications for the HONDA SENSING system from 2014 to present.

· No. 66: The hardware requirements for the HONDA SENSING system from 2014 to present.

· No. 71: The basic software design reviews and reports for HONDA SENSING in Honda vehicles from 2014 to present.

· No. 72: The release notes for the software utilized in HONDA SENSING in Honda vehicles from 2014 to present.

· No. 73: The issue tracking sheet for the software utilized in HONDA SENSING in Honda vehicles from 2014 to present.

The Court determines that these requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence because the information relates to the cause of the purported defects, which is something Plaintiffs are not required to prove. To the extent such information is relevant to the lawsuit, the probative value is too remote, and the requests are unduly burdensome. Moreover, it appears that Nos. 59, 60, 66 and 71-73 may request confidential and proprietary, or trade secret information.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to Nos. 56-60, 66, and 71-73 is DENIED.