Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00959, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00959    Hearing Date: March 26, 2024    Dept: C

Jessica Lozano vs Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

Case No.: 23NWCV00959

Hearing Date: March 26, 2024 @ 10:30 AM

#10

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Jessica Lozano’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, is DENIED as to Request Nos. 1-15, MOOT as to Request Nos. 16-31 and GRANTED as to Request Nos. 32-37.   

Plaintiff to give notice.

This is a lemon law case involving a certified pre-owned 2018 Jaguar XJ (the “vehicle”) purchased by Plaintiff Jessica Lozano (“Plaintiff”) and distributed by Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges there are nonconformities in the vehicle that Defendant’s repair facilities were unable to repair within a reasonable number of attempts, and as such, Defendant violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. 

Previously, Plaintiff argued that Defendant served boilerplate objections and inadequate responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, which seek documents directly related to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claims, including documents relating to: (1) Plaintiff’s own vehicle (Request Nos. 1-15); (2) Defendant’s warranty and repurchase policies, procedures, and practices (Request Nos. 16-31); and (3) Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model (Request Nos. 32-37). (Kohanoff Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. 3.)

In a ruling on January 2, 2024, the Court was not persuaded that counsel have exhausted their meet and confer obligations pursuant to the Code. Counsel was ORDERED to make further efforts to resolve the issues presented. The Court ruled that if, after exhausting those efforts, court intervention is needed, counsel may appear and argue the merits on the continued hearing date. The Court also ruled that if counsel are unable to informally resolve their discovery disputes, then counsel are instructed to submit a JOINT STATEMENT outlining the remaining disputed issues for which a ruling is required. The joint statement was filed on March 19, 2024.

Meet and Confer Requirement

A motion¿to compel further responses to requests for production “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).)¿ The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.)¿  

The Court finds that Plaintiff has fulfilled the meet and confer requirement after filing the joint statement with Defendant.

Separate Statement 

A motion to compel further responses requires a separate statement.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) Plaintiff properly filed separate statements.

Legal Standard

A party may make a demand for production of documents and propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).) The demand for production of documents is not limited by number, but the request must comply with the formatting requirements in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030.

The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service of a demand, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.070, subd. (a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070, subd. (a) - (b).) 

If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production or interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)  

The joint statement addresses the following:

Request Nos. 1-15:

Request Nos. 1-15 relate to the Subject Vehicle. Plaintiff seeks further documents relating to the warranty repairs performed on the Subject Vehicle and documentation available to Defendant in its evaluation of the Subject Vehicle for repurchase.

Defendant maintains that it produced all documents within its possession, custody, or control pertaining to Plaintiff’s ownership of the Subject Vehicle.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Request Nos. 1-15 is DENIED.

Request Nos. 16-31:

The parties have reached a compromise as to Request Nos. 16-31.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Request Nos. 16-31 is MOOT.

Request Nos. 32-37:

Request Nos. 32 through 37 seek information that establishes Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle, including documents relating to internal investigations and analysis into the cause of the problems in Plaintiff’s vehicle as reported by Plaintiff, including documents reviewed, written/oral reports created summarizing or otherwise reporting the results of such investigations, and memorandum or e-mails drafted regarding Plaintiff’s repurchase request and/or Defendant’s investigation and response thereto.

Defendant argues that the requests for the Customer Relations Center Cases as to all owners of 2018 Jaguar XJ vehicles is unduly burdensome as Defendant will have to read and review the cases to redact all private and confidential information of the third parties contained within the cases, which would require an inordinate amount of time.

These requests are overbroad because they seek documents related to vehicles worldwide. Therefore, the requests will be limited to Customer Relations Center Cases concerning 2018 Jaguar XJ vehicles sold in California.