Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2021-01207929, Date: 2022-11-28 Tentative Ruling
Motion to Compel Production filed by Sherwood D. Guy on 6/2/22
Plaintiff Sherwood D. Guy (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order striking Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) objections and compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Numbers 17-18, 20-23, 26, 30-33, 37.
A demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to a demand for inspection if a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).)
As an initial matter, Defendant argues this Motion should be denied or held in abeyance while its Motion to Compel Arbitration is pending. However, as Plaintiff points out, a separate motion to stay is required; an action will not be stayed automatically upon the filing of a petition to compel arbitration. (Dial 800 v. Fesbinder (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 32, 44-45.) Though Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration includes a request to stay this action, that Motion has not yet been ruled upon and is not set to be heard until January 23, 2023. Defendant has not brought a separate motion for a stay. Thus, the Court rejects Defendant’s argument.
The Court also rejects Defendant’s contention that the Motion should be denied because Defendant faces a risk of waiver of its right to compel arbitration if it participates in further litigation. Defendant has already responded to the discovery requests at issue. The only matter to be decided is whether further responses should be compelled. Defendant’s argument that being ordered to provide further responses to discovery to which it has already responded and made several document productions may constitute waiver of the right to arbitrate lacks merit.
Request No. 17:
This request seeks all warranty claims policy and procedure manual(s) from 2010 to the present.
In response, Defendant has produced a copy of the 2021 Nissan Warranty Information Booklet and has agreed to produce, upon entry of a protective order, its Warranty and Service Procedures Manual entitled “Assurance Products Resource Manual” (“APRM”).
Plaintiff argues that documents from 2010 to the present can support Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act by failing to repurchase the subject vehicle.
The Court finds this request overbroad in that it seeks documents spanning back to 2010. Plaintiff alleges that she purchased the subject vehicle in 2021. As Plaintiff points out, at issue is whether Defendant failed to abide by its duty to repurchase the vehicle and had any knowledge of the alleged defects. Neither of these issues requires production of documents dating back to 2010. Defendant has already produced a copy of the 2021 Nissan Warranty Information Booklet, which was in place at the time Plaintiff purchased her vehicle and sought repurchase from Defendant. Further, Defendant has agreed to produce additional warranty documents subject to entry of a protective order. Plaintiff does not argue Defendant’s request for a protective order prior to production of these documents is unwarranted.
Tentative Ruling: The Motion as to Request No. 17 is DENIED.
Request No. 18:
This request seeks all documents which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to Defendant’s rules, policies, or procedures since 2010 concerning the issuance of refunds to buyers or providing replacement vehicles to buyers in the State of California under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
As with Request No. 17, Defendant has produced a copy of the 2021 Nissan Warranty Information Booklet and has agreed to produce, upon entry of a protective order, its APRM.
For the same reasons as discussed with respect to Request No. 17, the Court finds this request to be overbroad.
Tentative Ruling: The Motion as to Request No. 18 is DENIED.
Request No. 20:
This request seeks all documents which evidence or describe the policies, procedures, and/or instructions which Defendant’s employees and authorized agents should follow after a decision has been made by Defendant to authorize either a refund of the purchase price, or a replacement vehicle, to Defendant’s customer.
Defendant’s response states that it will comply in whole with this request and produce all documents within its possession, custody, or control. Defendant’s Opposition states that it will also produce, subject to entry of a protective order, all responsive internal policy and procedure documents which relate to how its customer service representatives handle consumer complaints and/or requests for vehicle repurchase, including its APRM.
The Court notes that no stipulated protective order has been filed by the parties, which Defendant requires prior to production.
Tentative Ruling: The Motion as to Request No. 20 is GRANTED and the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding a stipulated protective order so that Defendant’s further promised production can be made.
Request Nos. 21, 26, 30, 31, and 32:
Request Nos. 21, 26, 30, 31, and 32 all seek documents spanning back from 2010 to the present.
For the same reasons as discussed with respect to Request No. 17, the Court finds these requests to be overbroad.
Tentative Ruling: The Motion as to Request Nos. 21, 26, 30, 31 and 32 is DENIED.
Request Nos. 22 and 23
Request No. 22 seeks all documents evidencing and/or describing Defendant’s training materials related to Defendant’s policy regarding how to calculate a repurchase.
Request No. 23 seeks all documents referencing, evidencing, and/or relating to YOUR policies, procedures, or guideline Defendant’s Opposition states that it will also produce, subject to entry of a protective order, all responsive internal policy and procedure documents which relate to how its customer service representatives handle consumer complaints and/or requests for vehicle repurchase.
Tentative Ruling: The Motion as to Request. Nos. 22 and 23 is GRANTED and the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding a stipulated protective order so that Defendant’s further promised production can be made.
Request No. 33:
This request seeks all documents which evidence or describe the numbers of owners of the 2021 Nissan Sentra vehicles who have complained of any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the subject vehicle to Defendant or Defendant’s authorized repair facility for repair. Defendant objected that the request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The Court finds that the request is not vague, ambiguous, or overly broad, and that it seeks documents that are relevant to this action. It is narrowly tailored to seek documents relating only to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle. Whether Defendant was aware of a significant number of customers who complained of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities Plaintiff complained of is probative of whether Defendant had knowledge of the alleged defects.
Tentative Ruling: The Motion as to Request No. 33 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve further responses and produce responsive documents within 15 days.
Request No. 37:
This request seeks all documents which evidence or describe sales brochures, literature or any other promotional materials provided or distributed by Defendant regarding vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant objected that this request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Plaintiff argues these documents can support Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act. However, beyond this conclusory assertion, Plaintiff offers no further argument as to how such documents could be used to show Defendant had any knowledge of a defect or failed to properly repurchase her vehicle.
Thus, the Court finds that this request seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Tentative Ruling: The Motion as to Request No. 37 is DENIED.
Plaintiff to give notice.