Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV00856, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00856, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00856 Hearing Date: December 13, 2023 Dept: C

huang v. jaguar land rover

CASE NO.: 23NWCV00856

HEARING: 12/13/23 @ 9:30 AM

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Lenny Huang (Plaintiff) moves to compel Defendant’s further response to Request for Production (set one) pursuant to CCP § 2031.310.

Background

On March 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America (Defendant) for alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Act for failure to repair or repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle and against Swickard Oakland Corporation for negligent repair.

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

The Court finds that the parties adequately met and conferred.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks further responses to Requests Nos. 1-37. Requests Nos. 1-16 and 34-35 are moot because Defendant served further responses.

Requests Nos. 17-27 and 29-31 seek documents related to Defendant’s lemon law policies and procedures. Request No. 28 seeks documents related to Defendant’s call center policies and procedures. Requests Nos. 32 and 36 seek generalized lemon law statistics. Requests Nos. 33 and 37 seek documents related to similar vehicles.

Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 17-27 and 29-31 because these requests seek documents within the scope of discovery. The Requests are overbroad as to time. However, Defendant’s lemon law policies and procedures from the date of purchase to the filing of Plaintiff’s lawsuit are within the scope of discovery because they are relevant to proving whether Defendant followed its policies and procedures as to Plaintiff’s vehicle. Therefore, Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 16-27 and 29-31 with the limitation that it shall produce responsive documents published from the date of purchase to the date of filing.

Defendant has adequately responded to Request No. 28 because the request is outside the scope of discovery. Here, the only cause of action in the pleadings against Defendant is for violation of the Song-Beverly Act. The basis of Song-Beverly is that Plaintiff’s vehicle had defects and nonconformities and (1) Defendant was not able to conform the vehicle to the applicable warranties within a reasonable number of attempts and failed to replace the vehicle or make restitution; (2) Defendant failed to service or repair the vehicle so as to conform to the applicable warranties within 30 days; (3) Defendant failed to make available to its authorized service and repair facilities sufficient literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period; and (4) the vehicle was not suitable for its intended use due to the defects that manifested. The Court fails to see how information relating to Defendant’s customer service number is relevant to this lawsuit. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for further response to Request No. 28 is denied.

Defendant has adequately responded to Request No. 32 and 36 because the requests are not relevant to the issues of the case and seek only general information that cannot be particularized to information relevant to Plaintiff’s vehicle. Thus, Plaintiff’s requests for further responses to Requests Nos. 32 and 36 are denied.

Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 33 and 37 because these requests seek documents within the scope of discovery. Defendant produced no documents to these requests. The Requests are overbroad as to scope because they seek documents related to vehicles outside of California. Therefore, Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 33 and 37 with the limitation that it shall produce responsive documents for California vehicles.

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. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).)

The Court finds that Defendant acted with substantial justification.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Their Requests for Production is GRANTED in part and DENIED in party as set forth above.