Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01373, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01373    Hearing Date: December 5, 2023    Dept: C

GENOVEVA LOZANO vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.

Case No. 22NWCV01373

Hearing Date: 12/05/23 @ 10:30am

#5

Tentative Order

Plaintiff Genoveva Lozano’s (Plaintiff) Motion to Compel Further Discovery is GRANTED in part as to Request Nos. 16, 19-29, and 31.

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED as to Request No. 24.

Moving Party to give notice.

Background

This is a lemon law action involving a purchase of a 2019 Ford Explorer.

On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff sent Defendant his first set of RFPs to better evaluate their claims and adequately prepare for settlement or trial. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A.) Generally, the requests at issue in this motion include requests seeking Ford’s policies and procedures related to its compliance with the Song-Beverly Act. (Ibid.) The demand set the production of documents for thirty-days after the service of the RFPs. (Ibid.) On February 24, 2023, Ford served its responses to Plaintiff’s requests, but the responses were not verified. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. B.) On March 9, 2023, Ford served verifications. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 4.)

On April 11, 2023, Plaintiff initiated the meet and confer process by sending a letter to Ford that specified the deficiencies in Ford’s responses. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. C.) Plaintiff also addressed the protective order issue and stated that, in the interest of compromising, Plaintiff would be agreeable to executing the Los Angeles Model Protective Order. (Ibid.)

On April 24, 2023, Ford provided a response to Plaintiff’s letter agreeing to provide supplemental responses. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 7; Ex. D.) Ford also stated that it would file a motion for protective order within 30 days. (Ibid.) On May 1, 2023, Ford served supplemental responses that contained many of the same deficiencies raised by Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 8; Ex. E.) Ford later served verifications on June 20, 2023. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 9; Ex. F.)

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

On June 15, 2023, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter addressing the deficiencies in Ford’s supplemental responses. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 9; Ex. G.) On June 30, 2023, Ford provided a response to Plaintiff’s letter but stood by its responses. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 11; Ex. I.) Ford again indicated that it was standing by its objections and would be filing a motion for protective order. (Ibid.) Therefore, Plaintiff believes that the parties are at an impasse and the motion is proper. (Ibid.)

The Court finds that the parties adequately met and conferred.

Discussion

Requests Nos. 16, 19-29, and 31

Plaintiffs seek to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 16, 19-29, and 31.

·        No. 16 seeks Ford’s warranty claims policy and procedure manuals from 2020 to the present;

·        Nos. 19-21 seek Ford’s policies and procedures for evaluating a consumer’s complaint or request for a refund of money paid toward a vehicle, or determining whether a vehicle is eligible for repurchase;

·        Nos. 22 and 23 seek all training materials regarding the handling of consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase or determining whether a vehicle is eligible for repurchase;

·        Nos. 25-29 seek Ford’s policies, procedures, and parameters for defining certain terms in the context of determining a vehicle’s eligibility for repurchase;

·        No. 31 seeks documents regarding Ford’s policies and procedures that its authorized repair facilities should follow regarding customer requests for a refund of the purchase price paid for a vehicle.

Plaintiff argues Defendant objected to each request and stated that it would not produce any documents. The parties represent that they have met and conferred as to Requests Nos. 16, 19-29, and 31and Defendant states it has offered to produce one or more of the following: (1) Ford’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual, which contains policy and procedure information regarding warranty repairs; (2) policies and procedures for Ford’s Customer Relationship Center (“CRC”), which handles communications from customers to Ford regarding vehicle concerns; (3) and its RAV Policy & Procedure Manual, which contains policy or procedure information about vehicle refunds and replacements, applicable to 2022.

The court determines that Plaintiff’s discovery requests are within the proper scope of discovery, but only for the years 2020 to the present.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery is GRANTED in part as to Request Nos. 16, 19-29, and 31.

Request No. 24

·        No. 24 seeks all scripts and flow charts used by Ford in handling consumer requests for repurchase or replacement.

Ford agreed to produce its policies and procedures for Ford’s Customer Relationship Center (“CRC”), applicable to 2022, which contain the flowcharts Plaintiff requested.

As to the scripts, Defendant contends that it conducted a reasonable and diligent search and could not find any documentation relating to the scripts. Accordingly, Defendant has properly responded to Nos. 24 because it stated that it conducted a diligent search and no responsive documents ever existed.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery is DENIED as to Request No. 24.

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).)

The Court finds that Defendant acted with substantial justification.