Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2022-01253659, Date: 2023-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Production filed by Salvador Barriga on 3/20/23

Plaintiff Salvador Barriga aka Salvador Barrigo (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 18, 22-23, 26-31, and 45-46, and imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,172.50.

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).) The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause to justify the discovery sought and be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310(b)(1)-(2).)

Requests for Production of Documents No. 18

Tentative Ruling: The Motion is DENIED as MOOT as to No. 18, as Defendant represents that it has served a further response.

Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 22-23 and 26-31

These requests seek several categories of policies and procedures from Defendant. Defendant’s responses indicate that it is unable to comply   the requests because no such documents have ever existed.

Plaintiff argues further responses should be compelled because it is highly unlikely that Defendant has no such written policies and procedures. Plaintiff argues that without formal training policies and procedures, Defendant would have to train new employees by word of mouth.

The Court finds that Defendant’s responses are Code-compliant and sufficient. Plaintiff’s argument that it is unlikely that no responsive documents exist is unsupported and Plaintiff has therefore failed to support this Motion with specific facts showing good cause to justify an order compelling further response.

Tentative Ruling: The Motion is DENIED for Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 22-23 and 26-31.

Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 45-46

These requests seek all documents evidencing complaints by owners of 2020 Honda Odyssey vehicles regarding any of the complaints Plaintiff had regarding the subject vehicle and all documents evidencing warranty repairs to 2020 Honda Odyssey vehicles regarding any of the components upon which repairs were performed under warranty.

Plaintiff argues these documents are relevant to whether a defect or nonconformity existed in the subject vehicle, Defendant’s failure and/or inability to repair that defect or nonconformity, and whether Defendant’s refusal to repurchase or replace the vehicle was willful, thereby subjecting Defendant to civil penalties.

Defendant contends these requests are overbroad in that they are not limited to the Plaintiff’s own subject vehicle and only those repairs and complaints made regarding Plaintiff’s own vehicle are relevant here.

The Court finds that documents evidencing other customers’ complaints similar to the alleged defects claimed by the plaintiff, limited to vehicles of the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. If there are documents showing that a large number of other customers experienced complaints with their 2020 Honda Odysseys similar to Plaintiff’s, Plaintiff could use that to prove the existence of a defect or nonconformity. However, to limit the burden on Defendant, the Court finds that this request should be limited to only those vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle purchased in California.

Tentative Ruling: The Motion is GRANTED as to Request No. 45 with the limitation of applying only to those vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle purchased in California.

Request No. 46

Plaintiff’s arguments in support of further response are the same as with No. 45—the documents will show whether a defect or nonconformity existed in Plaintiff’s vehicle and Defendant’s inability to repair such defect or nonconformity. While complaints about vehicles of the same make, model, and year may tend to show that Plaintiff’s own vehicle had a defect or nonconformity, records regarding warranty repairs in other vehicles has no bearing on Defendant’s ability to repair Plaintiff’s subject vehicle. Only the repair records for Plaintiff’s own vehicle are relevant to this issue.

Tentative Ruling: The Motion as to Request No. 46 is DENIED.

The Court finds that Defendant acted with substantial justification in opposing the instant Motion and therefore declines to award monetary sanctions.

Plaintiff to give notice.