Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV00051, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00051, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00051 Hearing Date: January 24, 2024 Dept: C

Lee, et al. v. American honda

CASE NO.: 23NWCV00051

HEARING: 1/24/24 @ 10:30 AM

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance is GRANTED in part as set forth below. The parties’ requests for sanctions against each other are DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiffs Hae Won Lee and Bora Violet Park (collectively Plaintiffs) move to compel compliance with this Court’s Discovery Order issued on June 23, 2023.

Background

On January 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant American Honda Motors (Defendant) for alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Act for failure to repair or repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff’s objections Nos. 1-14 are overruled.

Legal Standard

“Except as provided in subdivision (d), if a party then fails to obey an order compelling inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (CCP § 2031.320(c).)

Discussion

Plaintiffs move to compel compliance with the Court’s General Lemon Law Discovery Order issued on June 23, 2023. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant violated the Discovery Order because it failed to provide verifications for the responses it provided pursuant to the Discovery Order. The Discovery Order requires that all responses be verified. Thus, to the extent that Defendant has not, Defendant is ordered to provide verifications for all responses provided pursuant to the Discovery Order.

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant failed to provide the last four digits of the VINs required by the Discovery Order. Thus, Defendant is ordered to produce the complete VINs pursuant to the Discovery Order subsection (h).

Plaintiffs argue that TSB 19-124 issued on April 1, 2020 should be produced because it is relevant to establishing willful failure to repurchase the vehicle for Plaintiff’s claim for civil penalties. Plaintiffs allege they first noticed shaking and hard shifting on May 16, 2020. (Beck Decl., Ex. 1.) Further, the October 9, 2021 TSB 19-124 refers to an update to the part from an earlier TSB. Thus, the April 1, 2020 TSB 19-124 is discoverable because it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant failed to produce a list or compilation of the customer complaints in spreadsheet or list format and Bates Nos. 1776-2171 as stated in its Opposition. To the extent that Defendant failed to produce documents it claims are responsive to similar customer complaints of 2018 Honda Odysseys, it is ordered to do so, in particular the documents it identifies as Bates Nos. 1776-2171 that it states are responsive. Additionally, Defendant is to provide a spreadsheet or chart format of the customer complaints as required by Discovery Order subsection (h).

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).)

Plaintiffs seek sanctions for each day after an initial 10-day compliance period that Defendant fails to comply with the Court’s order. Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiffs for misuse of the discovery process for making an unsuccessful motion to compel without substantial justification. The Court declines to award sanctions because many of the issues raised by Plaintiffs were resolved by meeting and conferring, however, Plaintiffs’ Motion was still necessary for limited orders.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance is GRANTED in part as to the remaining issues discussed above. Defendant is to serve verified reponses within 20 days of this Order. Plaintiffs and Defendant’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.