Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00693, Date: 2024-05-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23NWCV00693 Hearing Date: May 15, 2024 Dept: C
BRUNSCHKEWITZ, et al.
v. American honda
CASE NO.: 23NWCV00693
HEARING: 5/15/24 @ 10:30 AM
#7
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 HUGO VON G BRUNSCHKEWITZ III aka
HUGO VON G BRUNSCHKEWITZ II and YU SHAN CHUNG (Plaintiffs) move to compel
further responses to their Requests for Production of Documents (set one) and
seek sanctions.
On
March 7, 2023, 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 2020 Honda CR-V (Subject 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).)
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.)
Meet
and Confer
The
Court finds that the parties adequately met and conferred.
Request
for Judicial Notice
Plaintiff
seeks judicial notice of the first amended complaint and a stipulated
protective order filed in 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. Evidence Code § 452 provides for the
judicial notice of documents of any court in this country. Judicial notice is
granted.
Discussion
Plaintiffs seek to compel further responses to
Requests Nos. 20, 23-24, 53-55, and 56-60. The specific language of the
discovery requests at issue is set forth below:
·
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
Plaintiff
·
NO.
23: All training materials regarding the handling of consumer requests for a
vehicle repurchase in California since 2020.
·
NO.
24: All training materials for YOUR employees or agents tasked with determining
whether a vehicle is eligible or a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the
Song-Beverly Act since 2020.
·
NO.
53: All DOCUMENTS evidencing complaints by owners of 2020 Honda CR-V vehicles
regarding any of the complaints that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented to YOUR
or YOUR authorized repair facilities for repair during the warranty period.
·
NO.
54: All DOCUMENTS evidencing warranty repairs to 2020 Honda CR-V vehicles
regarding any of the components that YOU or YOUR authorized repair facilities
performed repairs on under warranty.
·
NO.
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.
·
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.
Request No. 20 seeks the Operating Agreement
between Defendant and the dealership that sold Plaintiffs the vehicle. Defendant
is willing to produce its standard Automobile Dealers Sale and Service
Agreement which Defendant contends contains the terms in effect for the Honda
dealership that sold and serviced the Subject Vehicle. Defendant is willing to
serve a further verified response stating that the terms in the standard
agreement are identical to those in the signed version. Plaintiffs reject this
proposal on the ground that an unsigned form contract is of no evidentiary
value. Plaintiffs require the actual agreement in place between Defendant and
the leasing dealership on the date of lease. 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. Thus, the
Operating Agreement is discoverable, however, Defendant may redact any
proprietary financial information from the Agreement. Defendant is ordered to
provide a further response to Request No. 20.
Request
Nos. 23-24 seek the training materials provided
to Honda employees tasked with evaluating eligibility for vehicle repurchases since
2020 in California (no. 23) and pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act (no. 24).
Plaintiffs contend that this information is relevant for determining whether
Defendant has enacted policies to comply with its obligation under the Act to
repurchase nonconforming vehicles. Defendant
objects to RFP nos. 23-24 because they are overbroad, and read literally, would
require Defendant to provide training materials that are unrelated to vehicle
repurchases, such as sexual harassment or cybersecurity training, solely
because they were given to employees who are involved in repurchasing
decisions. Defendant is ordered to provide a further response to Request no.
23, as is, and to Request no. 24. Request No. 24 is limited to training
materials that are relevant to the task of determining whether a vehicle is
eligible for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act.
Request Nos. 53 and 54 seek documents related to customer
complaints and warranty repairs. Plaintiffs contend, and the Court agrees, that
this information is relevant to show whether Defendant acted in good faith and
whether Defendant willfully ignored its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act.
However, the requests are overbroad because they seek documents related to
vehicles worldwide. Therefore, this request will be limited to repairs and
customer complaints concerning 2020 Honda CR-Vs sold in California. Defendant
is ordered to provide a further response to Request Nos. 53 and 54 as to 2020 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. This request 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.
Requests
Nos. 56-60 request information on the Honda Sensing System from 2014 to present,
including 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. Specifically, Requests Nos. 56-58 seek
the organizational structure for the engineers that developed, tested, and
released the software for Honda Sensing. Request Nos. 59 and 60 seek the
software requirements and specifications for Honda Sensing. Plaintiff contends
that these requests are relevant to prove whether Defendant had knowledge of
the defect prior to Plaintiffs’ purchase of the Subject Vehicle. Defendant
objects on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ definition of Honda Sensing is vague,
and not all the systems Plaintiffs’ identified are at issue in this case.
Moreover, Defendant argues that it is a distributor and did not design or
manufacture the 2020 Honda CR-V or its component parts, so this information is
irrelevant as to whether Defendant knew of such alleged defects.
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 and 60 may request confidential and proprietary, or trade secret
information. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request
for further responses to Requests Nos. 56-60 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 Plaintiffs’ 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.