Judge Linda S. Marks, Case 01190509 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 01190509, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiffs

2. Motion to Compel filed by Defendant

Motion #1:

1. Request No. 15

Request No. 15 states: “All documents related to any and all incidents of non-collision fires involving other Hyundai Sonata vehicles.”

Plaintiffs claim further response is needed because the NHTSA investigation provided that there were more than 3,000 reports of fires that started in Kia and Hyundai vehicles without a crash. This request, however, is overbroad as it fails to provide any scope as to time or the Hyundai Sonata model for which the documents are sought.

2. Request No. 31

Request No. 31 states: “All communications between Hyundai executives and various employees about the manufacturing defect of the subject vehicle’s engine.”

Plaintiffs claim these communications establish the fraud alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs provided the names of 36 executives who they suspect were involved in the communications requested. Plaintiffs also requested that the search include all employees who discussed the defects. As written, this request is overly broad as it requests all communications between any and all executives and/or employees for an unspecified period of time.

3. Request No. 32

Request No. 32 states: “All communications between Hyundai executives and various employees about the design defect of the subject vehicle’s engine.”

4. Request No. 35

Request No. 35 states: “All documents provided to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Office of Defects Investigation in response to their evaluation and investigation into non- crash vehicle fires in 2011-2014 Hyundai Sonata and Santa Fe vehicles that were manufactured by Hyundai Motors America.”

Plaintiffs state that Defendant provided 488 pages of production but there should be more documents responsive to this request because more than 3,000 reports of fires that started without crashes were references in the NHTSA investigation. This request is overly broad as it pertains to the 2011-2014 Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles as the Hyundai Santa Fe is not at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs fail to establish why the Hyundai Santa Fe is relevant. However, the request regarding the 2011-2014 Hyundai Sonata appears reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence of the alleged defects that may have caused Plaintiffs’ car to catch fire and may further shed light on whether Defendant concealed information regarding the alleged defects. The request is narrow in scope as it only seeks information about the 2011-2014 Hyundai Sonatas.

Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Compel Defendant Hyundai Motor America, Inc. to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production of Document – Set One is DENIED as to Request Nos. 15, 31, and 32. The requests are overbroad.

The Motion to Compel Defendant Hyundai Motor America, Inc. to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production of Document – Set One is GRANTED as to Request No. 35 but limited to documents regarding the 2011-2014 Hyundai Sonata as the Hyundai Santa Fe is not at issue in this lawsuit.

Defendant Hyundai Motor America, Inc. shall serve verified responses to Requests No. 35 regarding the 2011-2014 Hyundai Sonata within 30 days of the notice of ruling.

The court finds Defendant’s argument that Defendant lacks possession, custody, and control of the documents requested unmeritorious. “Where the relationship is thus such that the subsidiary can secure documents of the parent to meet its own business needs, courts have not permitted the subsidiary to deny control for purposes of discovery by an opposing party.” (LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Chi Mei Optroelectronics Corp. (S.D. Cal., 2009) 2009 WL 223585, at *3.) Defendants Hyundai Motor America and Hyundai Motor Company are jointly represented by the same defense counsel and therefore Hyundai Motor America cannot deny control for purposes of discovery.

No sanctions are awarded.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Motion #2:

It is not clear if Plaintiffs served responses. Defendant contends that no responses to the requests for production have been provided by these Plaintiffs and maintains this contention in its reply papers. Plaintiffs contend that they have provided responses. Plaintiffs did not file the responses with the court showing that responses were in fact provided, although Plaintiffs’ counsel stated in his declaration that responses were provided. Without filing the responses with the court, it appears that responses were not provided.

Plaintiffs argue that the deadline to bring these motions has expired as the parties agreed in writing that the deadline to bring a motion to compel further for all discovery at issue was February 28, 2022. (ROA #145, Declaration of Robin Jung (“Jung Decl.”), ¶ 6; ROA # 151, Jung Decl., ¶ 6; ROA # 155, Jung Decl., ¶ 6; and ROA # 159, Jung Decl., ¶ 6.) However, if no responses to the discovery at issue were served, the 45-day statutory deadline or deadline agreed to by the parties does not apply. As such, the motions are timely, and the Defendant’s motion should be granted. If granted, Defendant has requested sanctions, which would be appropriate.

If Plaintiffs provided responses to the discovery at issue, the motions were to be presented as motions to compel further and are therefore subject to the 45-day deadline or the deadline agreed to by the parties in writing. The motions were not filed within either of those deadlines. As such, the motions to compel and related requests for sanctions should be denied as the motions should have been presented as a motion to compel further responses and such motions would be untimely even if properly presented with the correct legal authority and a separate statement.

Based on the evidence before the court, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs served responses to the requests for production at issue. Hence, there are two alternative rulings, and the adopted ruling will be dependent on whether Plaintiffs to file a declaration authenticating their supplemental responses with the related proofs of service and verifications no later than 2 days from the date of this hearing.

Moving party to give notice.

Tentative Ruling: If Plaintiffs provided responses: Defendant Hyundai Motor America’s (1) Motion to Compel Production from Plaintiff Michael Siebenaler, ROA # 162; (2) Motion to Compel Production from Plaintiff Penny Robinson, ROA # 166; (3) Motion to Compel Production from Plaintiff Ashley Siebenaler, ROA # 170; and Motion to Compel Production from Plaintiff Kaitlyn Siebenaler, ROA # 174 and related requests for sanctions are DENIED. The court lacks jurisdiction over the discovery motions. Defendant also failed to identify the requests at issue pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (d).

If Plaintiffs did not provide responses: Defendant Hyundai Motor America’s (1) Motion to Compel Production from Plaintiff Michael Siebenaler, ROA # 162; (2) Motion to Compel Production from Plaintiff Penny Robinson, ROA # 166; (3) Motion to Compel Production from Plaintiff Ashley Siebenaler, ROA # 170; and Motion to Compel Production from Plaintiff Kaitlyn Siebenaler, ROA # 174 are GRANTED. The requests for sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $400 in sanctions for each motion, for a grand total of $1600.

Prevailing party to give notice.