Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV00343, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00343, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00343 Hearing Date: January 10, 2024 Dept: C

pacheco v. volkswagen

CASE NO.: 23NWCV00343

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

Plaintiff Alejandra Pacheco’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED in part and DENEID in part as set forth below.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Background

On February 1, 2023, Plaintiff Alejandra Pacheco (“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. The parties met and conferred and filed a joint statement of remaining issues after stipulating to continuing the matter from December 13, 2023 to January 10, 2024.

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).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 6, 9, 11-12, 18-23, 25, 30, and 33-35. Plaintiff also requests that Defendant provide a privilege log.

Requests Nos. 18-23 and 25 relate to Defendant’s lemon law policies and procedures. Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to produce documents related to “salesforce KNOWLEDGE,” “salesforce PROCEDURE,” “Lemon Law Escalation Matrix,” “Goodwill Guidelines for Review”, “PROCEDURE: Customer calling to speak with their Customer Resolution and Retention (CRR) Specialist,” “PROCEDURE: Non-TDI Customer is working with an attorney,” “PROCEDURE: General CRR Case Handling Guidelines,” “Repurchase or replacement denial position in writing, ‘outlining specific policies and procedures for CR&R case escalation and case handling on the VW Resource Center,’” “calculating a repurchase offer,” lemon law guidelines on flis.org, and live training materials. Defendant argues that the documents are not relevant due to Plaintiff not requesting a repurchase/replacement and that Plaintiff is using the previously discovered material to “fish” for additional documents. 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.) The additional responsive documents themselves may not be admissible at trial, they are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence because they relate to Defendant’s lemon law policies and procedures. Therefore, Defendant is ordered to supplement its responses to Requests Nos. 18-23 and 25 to include production of the above documents.

Requests Nos. 30 and 33-35 relate to customer complaints or repairs to similar vehicles. Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to produce TREAD complaints of similar vehicles for similar complaints. Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not need the complaints or repairs of other vehicles to prove their case at trial. However, the standard of discovery is broad and includes information that is admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Calcor, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223-224.) Plaintiff also seeks to compel Defendant to produce all repair instructions or other diagnostic/repair procedures identified by the repairs and “Safety Recalls” on Plaintiff’s vehicle and a summary of Defendant’s investigation of the root problems of Plaintiff’s vehicle and the defect in Safety Recall 97GF. Defendant contends that it produced all documents related to diagnostic/repair procedures identified by the repairs and “Safety Recalls” on Plaintiff’s vehicle. Thus, the Court cannot compel Defendant to produce additional documents it contends do not exist. Defendant contends that investigation into the root problems and the defect in Safety Recall 97GF are not within the scope of the General Discovery Order. However, such investigations as they relate to Plaintiff’s vehicle could be evidence of Defendant’s liability for civil penalties under the Song-Beverly Act. Thus, the documents are discoverable. Therefore, Defendant is ordered to supplement its responses to Requests Nos. 30 and 33-35 to include production of the above documents.

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 6, 9, 11, and 12 based on the response stating that it does not possess any documents, or no documents exist, and not naming persons or entities which may have responsive documents. Defendant agrees to provide a further response to Request No. 6 identifying Plaintiff as having responsive documents. Defendant argues that it is not aware of documents responsive to the other categories. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to compel a further response to Request No. 6 is granted and her request to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 9, 11, and 12 is denied.

Plaintiff requests that Defendant be ordered to provide a privilege log for Requests Nos. 3, 4, 8, 9, 11-14, 18, and 32-36 because Defendant’s Song Beverly response department is trained by general counsel, and pre-litigation policies and procedures are important to prove that Defendant willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act. However, the Court declines to require that Defendant provide a privilege log as to the Requests as it would be a substantial burden and Plaintiff’s instant Motion has been granted nearly in full.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED in part and DENEID in part as detailed above.