Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01057, Date: 2024-10-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23NWCV01057 Hearing Date: October 2, 2024 Dept: C
FRANCISCO GARCIA
ASPRILLA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.
CASE NO.: 23NWCV01057
HEARING: 10/02/24
#4
TENTATIVE ORDER
Plaintiff Francisco Garcia Asprilla’s Motion to Compel
Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part as set forth below.
Moving party to give notice.
Background
Plaintiff Francisco Garcia Asprilla (“Plaintiff”) alleges
that his 2018 Ford EcoSport, manufactured by Defendant Ford Motor Company
(“Defendant”), suffers from transmission defects that Defendant has been unable
to repair within a reasonable number of attempts.
On November 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint. On April 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended
Complaint (“SAC”) alleging the following causes of action:
(1) Violation
of Subdivision (d) of Civil Code Section 1793.2;
(2) Violation
of Subdivision (b) of Civil Code Section 1793.2;
(3) Violation
of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2;
(4) Breach
of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability;
(5) Violation
of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
On January 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to
compel further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents.
On September 18, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition.
On September 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.
Evidentiary Objections
Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to the declaration of
Erich Kemnitz:
OVERRULED:
1-21
SUSTAINED:
None
Analysis
Legal Standard
“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this
title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,
that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the
determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself
admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) For discovery purposes, information is
regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the
case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017)
9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)
A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or
production of documents (“RFP”) may be brought based on: (1) incomplete
statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of
inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).)
A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts
showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.
(See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) In Digital
Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the
Court defined “good cause” as a showing that there “a disputed fact that is of
consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove
or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or
disprove the fact.”
If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for
production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal.
App.4th 92, 98.)
“The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the
burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the
likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.” (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.020(a).) Generally, objections on
the ground of burden require the objecting party to produce evidence of (a) the
propounding party’s subjective intent to create burden, or (b) the amount of
time and effort it would take to actually respond. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For
Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) However, where discovery is
obviously overbroad on its face, no such evidence is necessary. (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67
Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)
Trial courts are vested with “wide discretion” to allow or prohibit
discovery. (Williams v. Superior Court
(2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)
RPDs
Plaintiff seeks
further responses to RFPs, Set One, Nos. 1, 3, 12, 15, 17, 19, 31, 36, 39, 43,
45, 46, 56, 57, 58, 68, 69, 73, 77, 82 and 83. Plaintiff requested several categories
of documents, which include:
1. Document concerning the Subject Vehicle defined as the “2018
Ford EcoSport vehicle identification number MAJ3P1TEXJC208205” (the “Subject
Vehicle”) (See Plaintiff’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One
(“RFP(1)”), Nos. 1, 3, 12, and 15);
2. Documents concerning FMC’s Internal Knowledge and Investigation
regarding the Transmission Defects in 2018 Ford EcoSport vehicles,
including internal investigations, emails, and other Electronically Stored
Information (“ESI”) (See RFP Nos. 17, 19, 31, 36, and 39 [“Internal
Investigation Discovery”]), which are discoverable under Donlen v. Ford
Motor Co., 217 Cal. App. 4th at 143-144 (2013);
3. Documents concerning Summaries, Memorandum, Power Points,
regarding Transmission Defects in 2018 Ford EcoSport vehicles (see RFP
Nos. 43, 45 and 46 [“internal Documentation Discovery”]), which are
discoverable under Donlen v. Ford Motor Co., 217 Cal. App. 4th at
143-144 (2013), and Santana v. FCA, US, LLC, 56 Cal. App. 5th 334
(2020), among other cases cited in the supporting papers;
4. Documents concerning the Song-Beverly Act and Buyback Policies and
Procedure (see RFP Nos. 56, 57, 58, 68, 69 and 73 [“Policies and
Procedure Discovery”]), which are discoverable under Jensen v. BMW of N.
Am., Inc., 35 Cal. App. 4th 112 (1995), among other cases cited in the
supporting papers; and
5. Documents concerning Communications with Governmental Agencies and
Suppliers regarding the Transmission Defects in 2018 Ford EcoSport vehicles
(See RFP Nos. 77, 82 and 83 [Communication Discovery]), which are
discoverable under Santana, 56 Cal. App. 5th at 343;
Defendant provided
the following responses below. The Court will discuss whether Defendant should
be compelled to provide further responses to each request.
In response to
Plaintiff’s discovery requests, Ford Motor Company provided a combination of
partial compliance, objections, and refusals across the following requests:
RPD No. 1 (All
documents regarding the subject vehicle in Ford’s databases): Ford agreed to
produce certain documents such as the factory invoice, vehicle information
reports, warranty claim history, and other records from Ford’s databases.
However, Ford objected to broader production, arguing the request was overly
broad, burdensome, and sought irrelevant information beyond the specific
components at issue.
The Court finds
that further responses are not warranted as the documents that Defendant has
stated it will produce are sufficiently responsive to this request.
The motion is DENIED
as to RPD No. 1.
RPD No. 3 (Reports
and analysis on parts returned for root cause analysis): Ford objected to this
request, claiming it was overly broad and burdensome. The request was not
limited to relevant parts or timeframes, and Ford raised concerns about the
inclusion of privileged documents.
Internal analyses or investigations regarding the defects in
Plaintiff’s vehicle, including root cause or failure mode analyses, are
relevant as these documents may assist in determining Defendant’s knowledge of
the defect and its attempts to resolve the issue. Thus,
the request shall be limited to the transmission defects at issue in this case for
vehicles of the same make and model sold in California.
The motion is GRANTED in part as to RPD No. 3.
RPD No. 12 (Pre-sale
or pre-purchase documents related to transmission defects): Ford partially
complied, providing access to public documents like the Owner’s Manual and
Warranty Guide. However, it refused broader production, arguing that the
request was too broad and sought irrelevant documents.
The Court finds
that further responses are not warranted as the documents that Defendant has
stated it will produce are sufficiently responsive to this request.
The motion is DENIED
as to RPD No. 12.
RPD No. 15 (Communications
regarding repairs and complaints about the Subject Vehicle): Ford agreed to
produce certain relevant documents, such as warranty claim history and
technical communications but objected to the request’s scope, including audio
recordings. The Court determines that the
request is within the proper scope of discovery because it specifically relates
to the Subject Vehicle.
The motion is GRANTED
as to RPD No. 15.
RPD No. 17 (Internal
analyses and investigations regarding transmission defects): Ford partially
complied by agreeing to produce a list of Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs),
Special Service Messages (SSMs), and other related documents but objected to
any broader searches for emails or irrelevant documents. The request shall be
limited to the transmission defects at issue in this case for vehicles of the
same make and model sold in California.
The motion is GRANTED
in part as to RPD No. 17.
RPD No. 19 (Root
cause analysis of transmission defects): Ford agreed to provide certain
relevant documents, such as TSBs and customer satisfaction programs, but
objected to the request’s scope, which sought email searches and documents
unrelated to the specific defect. The
Court determines that the request is overbroad because it is not limited to the
transmission defects at issue in this case, and includes vehicles sold
worldwide. The request shall be limited
to the transmission defects at issue in this case for vehicles of the same make
and model sold in California.
The motion is
GRANTED in part as to RPD No. 19.
RPD No. 31 (Failure
Mode and Effects Analysis reports regarding transmission defects): Ford refused
to comply, arguing that the request was overly broad, burdensome, and sought
irrelevant information not limited to the subject vehicle.
Internal analyses or investigations regarding the defects in
Plaintiff’s vehicle, including root cause or failure mode analyses, are
relevant as these documents may assist in determining Defendant’s knowledge of
the defect and its attempts to resolve the issue. However, the request is
overbroad as to geographic location and time.
The request shall be limited to the transmission defects at issue in
this case for vehicles of the same make and model sold in California.
The motion is GRANTED in part as to RPD No. 31.
RPD No. 36
(Documents related to decisions to issue recalls, service bulletins, etc.):
Ford partially agreed to produce relevant TSBs and related documents but
objected to the request's broadness, particularly regarding email searches and
documents outside the scope of the lawsuit.
The information sought may assist Plaintiff in
determining Defendant’s knowledge of the defect and its attempts to resolve the
issue. However, the request is overbroad
in terms of geographic location and time.
The request shall be limited to the transmission defects at issue in
this case for vehicles of the same make and model sold in California.
The motion is
GRANTED in part as to RPD No. 36.
RPD No. 39
(Documents concerning any decisions to modify the 6-speed transmission in
response to defects): Ford agreed to provide some relevant TSBs and related
documents but objected to the request’s scope and the lack of reasonable
limitations. The
information sought may assist in determining Defendant’s knowledge of the
defect and its attempts to resolve the issue.
However, the request is overbroad in terms of geographic location and
time. The request shall be limited to the
transmission defects at issue in this case for vehicles of the same make and
model sold in California.
The motion is
GRANTED in part as to RPD No. 39.
RPD No. 43 (Internal
documents and reports prepared by engineers or suppliers regarding transmission
defects): Ford agreed to provide a list of relevant TSBs, SSMs, and General
Service Bulletins, but objected to any broader search, citing the request’s
overbroad nature and burden. The
information sought may assist in determining Defendant’s knowledge of the
defect and its attempts to resolve the issue.
However, the request is overbroad in terms of geographic location and
time. The request
shall be limited to the transmission defects at issue in this case for vehicles
of the same make and model sold in California.
The motion is
GRANTED as to RPD No. 43.
RPD No. 45 (Executive
summaries and reports regarding the 6-speed transmission issues): Ford refused
to comply, arguing the request was overly broad, burdensome, and sought
irrelevant documents without reasonable particularity. The request shall be
limited to the transmission defects at issue in this case for vehicles of the
same make and model sold in California.
The motion is
GRANTED in part as to RPD No. 45.
RPD No. 46
(Organizational charts of departments involved in recalls, quality, or
engineering): Ford objected, stating the request was overly broad, irrelevant,
and burdensome. Ford also argued that organizational charts were not tied to
any specific defect or the subject vehicle.
Plaintiff does not explain how organizational charts are relevant
to the transmission defect at issue in this case.
The motion is DENIED as to RPD No. 46.
RPD No. 56
(Documents used to evaluate repurchase requests under the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act): Ford agreed to produce some documents but objected to the
request's broadness, particularly regarding documents unrelated to the specific
vehicle. The
Court determines that the request is overbroad.
It is unclear what Plaintiff is seeking, and the Court is under no
obligation to fashion a more narrowly tailored request.
The motion is DENIED
as to RPD No. 56.
RPD No. 57 (Policies
or procedures for issuing refunds or replacements under the Song-Beverly Act):
Ford agreed to provide relevant documents but objected to the broader scope of
the request, which sought irrelevant information not limited to the subject
vehicle. The Court determines that the
request is within the proper scope of discovery.
The motion is
GRANTED as to RPD No. 57.
RPD No. 58 (Training
manuals related to lemon law repurchase requests): Ford objected to this
request, citing its broad and burdensome nature. The request was not limited to
relevant documents or specific issues at hand.
The request shall be limited to training manuals since 2021 concerning vehicles
sold in California. If Defendant does
not use training manuals specific to California, then it shall produce any
training manuals it uses nationwide.
The motion is GRANTED in part as to RPD No. 58.
RPD No. 68
(Documents regarding lemon law provided to employees): Ford agreed to produce
some documents, including the Owner’s Manual and Warranty Guide, but objected
to the broader request as overly broad and irrelevant. The Court determines that the request is
overbroad.
The motion is DENIED
as to RPD No. 68.
RPD No. 69 (Document
retention policies): Ford objected, stating the request was overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and irrelevant without any specific concerns about document
preservation. Plaintiff has not
explained why the request is relevant to the issues in this case.
The motion is DENIED
as to RPD No. 69.
RPD No. 73 (Recall
policies and procedures): Ford agreed to comply in part, by providing documents
found through a reasonable search, as long as no objections apply. It pointed
out that it follows federal regulations for recall notifications, which are
publicly available, and that its OASIS system alerts dealerships to open
recalls when a vehicle’s VIN is entered. However, Ford objected to the request
as being too broad, burdensome, and seeking irrelevant information, since it is
not limited to the subject vehicle or relevant timeframes and issues.
The Court finds
that further responses are not warranted as the documents that Defendant has
stated it will produce are sufficiently responsive to this request.
The motion is DENIED
as to RPD No. 73.
RPD No. 77 (Communications
with suppliers regarding the transmission defect): Ford refused to comply on
the grounds that the request was overly broad, lacked specificity, and was
irrelevant to the case. Additionally, Ford claimed that the request may involve
privileged information protected by attorney-client privilege or work product
doctrine.
The Court finds
this request to be relevant to the issues in this case, specifically whether
Ford was aware of the defect and how it addressed it. These documents could
provide insight into the design, manufacturing, and possible issues identified
by suppliers that contributed to the transmission defects. However, the request
is overbroad as to time and not limited to the issues in this case. The request shall be limited to
communications beginning in 2018 regarding the transmission defect at issue in this
case.
The motion is GRANTED
in part as to No. 77.
RPD 82 and No. 83
(Documents and communications with part suppliers regarding transmission
defects): Ford objected, stating that the requests were overly broad and not
limited to relevant issues or timeframes.
The requests shall be limited to communications beginning in 2018
regarding the transmission defect at issue in this case.
The motion is GRANTED in part as to Nos. 82 and 83.
Given that some of the requests are entitled to further
responses, the Court denies Defendant’s request for sanctions.