Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV023071, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV023071    Hearing Date: November 6, 2024    Dept: C

DENNIS v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

CASE NO.:  23NWCV03071

HEARING:  11/06/2024 @ 10:30 A.M.

#10

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Sean Antoine Dennis’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.

This is a Song-Beverly action about a 2019 Jaguar F-Pace. Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, request numbers 1 through 31.

On August 14, 2024, the Court continued the motion to November 6, 2024 and ordered counsel to make further efforts to meet and confer. The Court required counsel to submit a revised joint separate statement on or before October 25, 2024, if counsel are unable to informally resolve their discovery disputes.

On October 25, 2024, the parties filed their joint separate statement. 

“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 state 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(a).)  

A motion to compel further responses to a request for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (CCP §2031.310(b)(1).)  

The following RPDs remain at issue: RPD numbers 1 through 31.

Per the Declaration of Joshua Kohanoff in support of the motion, request numbers 1 through 14 relate to Plaintiff’s own vehicle; request numbers 15 through 29 relate to Defendant’s warranty and repurchase policies, procedures, and practices; and request numbers 30 and 31 relate to Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same, year, make, and model. (Declaration of Joshua Kohanoff ¶ 17, Ex. 3.)

Per the joint separate statement, Plaintiff states that Defendant asserts objections on the grounds of privilege to request numbers 1 through 31, however, Defendant has failed to furnish a privilege log. As to request numbers 17 through 29, Defendant asserts improper statements of noncompliance in its supplemental responses that “the particular item or category never existed.” Further, request numbers 30 and 31, which requests Defendant to produce TREAD complaints that are substantially similar to the alleged defects claimed by Plaintiff, relate to the Court’s February 7, 2024, Case Management Conference Order. Category (h) of the Case Management Conference Order provides: “A list or compilation of customer complaints in Defendant’s electronically stored database that are substantially similar to the alleged defects claimed by Plaintiff, in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle. . .”

Defendant’s position per the joint separate statement is as follows. Defendant’s response that it cannot comply because the document never existed complies with CCP §2031.230. Defendant has objected as to privilege to preserve its objection, however, Defendant is not withholding any documents based on privilege. Defendant has already offered to produce its policy and procedure documents pursuant to a protective order; and Defendant is amendable to the LASC model protective order and will produce the documents upon execution of a stipulated protective order. Lastly, as to request numbers 30 and 31, the requested TREAD REPORTS are publicly available on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) website.

The Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth below. 

Request numbers 1 through 14 relate to Plaintiff’s own vehicle and are thus within the proper scope of discovery.  As to these requests, the motion is GRANTED. 

Request numbers 15, 16, 18, 23, 24 relate to Defendant’s policies and procedures which Defendant has already offered to produce subject to a protective order.  As to these requests, the motion is DENIED. 

As to Request numbers 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, and 29, Defendant’s supplemental responses indicate that the documents never existed.  The Court finds that the responses comply with CCP §2031.230.  Thus, the motion to compel further responses to these requests is DENIED.   

As to request numbers 30 and 31, the Court limits Plaintiff’s requests to documents that are not publicly available NHTSA documents.

Plaintiff does not request sanctions, and the Court declines to award sanctions.