Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00948, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00948    Hearing Date: August 14, 2024    Dept: C

Irvin Pelagio vs FCA US LLC, et al.

Case No.: 23NWCV00948

Hearing Date: August 14, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m.

#1

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Irvin Pelagio’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED in part as set forth below.  Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

This is a lemon law action.  Plaintiff Irvin Pelagio (“Plaintiff”) contends that Defendants Premier Automotive of Placentia, LLC and FCA US LLC (“Defendants”) violated the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act by failing to repair Plaintiff’s 2021 Dodge Durango. During the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or developed numerous defects that Defendants’ authorized repair facility was unable to conform to warranty.

On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff served the first set of Request for Production of Documents. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. A.) On October 23, 2023, FCA served responses but without verifications. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. B.) FCA later served verifications on October 26, 2023. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 5.)

On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff sent an additional meet and confer letter addressing these interrogatories. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 10; Ex. G.) Plaintiff asked that the parties agree to extend the motion to compel deadline to January 31, 2024 and asked that FCA respond to the letter by January 17, 2024. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 11; Ex. D.) FCA agreed. (Ibid.) On January 17, 2024, FCA provided a response essentially indicating that it was standing by its responses. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 12; Ex. H.) Despite the parties’ efforts, the parties remain at an impasse. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 13.)

Plaintiffs move to compel further response to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 28, 30, and 34-35. 

Legal Standard

“(a) The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following: (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities; (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item; (3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” (CCP § 2031.210.)

“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (CCP § 2031.230.)

“(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (CCP § 2031.310.)

Discussion

Request for Production of Documents Nos. 28, 30, and 34, 35

All these document requests involve pre-litigation release agreements.

·        RFP No. 28: All DOCUMENTS which describe YOUR rules, policies, or procedures regarding requiring a consumer in California to sign a release agreement as part of a pre-litigation repurchase.

According to Plaintiff, whether Defendant has a policy requiring consumers to sign release agreements, like the one it sent Plaintiff, would demonstrate whether it willfully violates the Song-Beverly Act.  Defendant stands by its relevance and overbreadth objections because the lawsuit relates to Plaintiff’s single vehicle, and it is not a class action suit. 

The Court determines that Request No. 28 is within the proper scope of discovery, subject to the limitation that Defendant need only produce records from 2021 to the present date.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further response to RFP No. 28 is GRANTED in part.

·        RFP No. 30: All DOCUMENTS evidencing the rationale of YOUR response to the pre-litigation repurchase request for the SUBJECT VEHICLE

Plaintiff did not include this request in the separate statement.  The request will not be considered.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further response to RFP No. 30 is DENIED.

·        RFP No. 34: YOUR template “goodwill” pre-litigation repurchase letter in California

·        RFP No. 35: YOUR template pre-litigation repurchase letter(s) for a vehicle being repurchased pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act.

Plaintiff argues that the template letters may tend to prove that FCA willfully engaged in a corporate pattern and practice of frustration and taking undue advantage of consumers instead of issuing the required statutory remedies. If so, the jury may impose civil penalties against FCA.

Defendant repeats its argument that this a not class-action case; therefore, templates are unnecessary and are not causally related to the instant action. Defendant contends it will comply in part with the requests by producing a copy of any Customer Assistance Inquiry Records (CAIRs) containing communications with Plaintiff relating to the Subject Vehicle.

The Court determines that Request Nos. 34 and 35 are within the proper scope of discovery because template letters, to the extent they are used by Defendant, may reflect Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding pre-litigation repurchase offers.  Defendant need only produce letters from 2021 to the present date. 

Accordingly, the motion to compel further response to RFP Nos. 34 and 35 is GRANTED in part. 

Sanctions

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction…against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP §2031.310(h).)

Based on the nature of the discovery requests at issue, particularly with respect to template letters, the Court determines that Defendant acted with substantial justification in opposing the motion. 

Accordingly, the request for sanctions is DENIED.