Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02919, Date: 2025-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02919    Hearing Date: June 12, 2025    Dept: C

GONZALEZ, ET AL.  v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC., ET AL.

CASE NO.:  23NWCV02919

HEARING:  06/12/2025 @ 9:30 a.m.

#7

Plaintiff Pedro Gonzalez and Marilu Miramontes Arce’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) is GRANTED in part with the limitations set forth below.

Moving Party to give Notice.

Plaintiffs Pedro Gonzalez and Marilu Miramontes Arce (collectively “Plaintiffs”) move to compel further responses to their Requests for Production (set two).

Background

This is a lemon law action. On January 3, 2020, Plaintiffs purchased a 2020 Honda Odyssey (Subject Vehicle). Plaintiffs allege that during the warranty period, Plaintiffs presented the Subject Vehicle for repairs on multiple occasions to no avail.

On September 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Defendant), alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Act.

On or about May 16, 2024, Plaintiffs propounded their Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, that is currently at issue. (Grigoryan Decl., ¶ 18.) On or about July 8, 2024, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s request with verified responses allegedly containing boilerplate objections and lacking some of the responsive documents. (Id., ¶ 19.)

On September 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed the present motion to compel further responses. On June 4, 2025, Defendant filed its Opposition. On June 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Reply. The hearing on the present motion is scheduled for June 12, 2025.

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 to compel further responses to Request Nos. 10, 14, 23, 24, 33, 37, 46, 47, 56, 60, 69, 70, 79, 80, 83, 92, and 93.

As a preliminary matter, the Court recognizes that Defendant did not file and serve a timely opposition. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.513, “...all memorandums and declarations in support of or opposition to any petition, motion, or application must be served and submitted at least nine court days before any hearing on the matter at issue.” The hearing on the present motion to compel is scheduled for June 12, 2025. Defendant filed its opposition on June 4, 2025, which is less than nine court days before the hearing set for June 12, 2025. Plaintiffs argue that they were prejudiced because they only had one day to review the opposition and prepare a timely reply. (Reply, 5:11-22.) Based on the foregoing, the Court disregards Defendant’s opposition.

Defendant is compelled to provide a further response. The documents are within the scope of discovery as discovery is broad and includes information that is admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223-224.) Furthermore, to prevail, the party moving for the order must first offer specific facts demonstrating “good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ burden to show good cause is met.

Request Nos. 10, 14, 23, and 24 seek documents relating to any field technical reports relating to the engine defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model of the Subject Vehicle. Plaintiffs plead sufficient facts about the Subject Vehicle’s alleged engine defects and Defendant’s alleged knowledge of such defects. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs demonstrated good cause justifying the discovery sought because Plaintiffs plead sufficient facts demonstrating the relevance of this request.

Request Nos. 33, 37, 46, and 47 seek documents relating to any field technical reports relating to the electrical defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model of the Subject Vehicle. Plaintiffs plead sufficient facts about the Subject Vehicle’s alleged electrical defects and Defendant’s alleged knowledge of such defects. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs demonstrated good cause justifying the discovery sought because Plaintiffs plead sufficient facts demonstrating the relevance of this request.

Request Nos. 56, 60, 69, and 70 seek documents relating to any field technical reports relating to the suspension defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model of the Subject Vehicle. Plaintiffs plead sufficient facts about the Subject Vehicle’s alleged suspension defects and Defendant’s alleged knowledge of such defects. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs demonstrated good cause justifying the discovery sought because Plaintiffs plead sufficient facts demonstrating the relevance of this request.

Request Nos. 79, 83, 92, and 93 seek documents relating to any field technical reports relating to the structural defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model of the Subject Vehicle. Plaintiffs plead sufficient facts about the Subject Vehicle’s alleged structural defects and Defendant’s alleged knowledge of such defects. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs demonstrated good cause justifying the discovery sought because Plaintiffs plead sufficient facts demonstrating the relevance of this request.

Notably, Plaintiffs do not include the language of Request No. 80 nor any description of the documents sought under Request No. 80 anywhere in their pleadings. Therefore, the Court cannot make a determination on whether Plaintiffs demonstrated good cause justifying the discovery sought under Request No. 80.

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. (CCP §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h), 2033.290(d).)

Here, Plaintiff does not seek sanctions against Defendant. Furthermore, because the Court deemed Defendant’s opposition untimely and refused to consider it, the Court finds that sanctions against Defendant are not warranted.