Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2023-00010449-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 15, 2024

02/16/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00010449-CU-BC-CTL AQUINO VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Trinh Aquino's motion to compel Defendant Ford Motor Company to provide further responses to requests for production is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth below.

Aquino's evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Erich Kemnitz and the Declaration of John Southerland are overruled.

Standard '[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) In order to compel further responses to document requests, the moving party must show 'good cause.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) When there are no issues of privilege or work-product, that burden is met 'simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.' (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98; Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) However, 'there must be a showing of more than a wish for the benefit of all the information in the adversary's files.' (Pacific Auto Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 61, 67.) Analysis RFPs 1, 3, and 16 all relate to Aquino's specific vehicle at the heart of this case. The information sought is within the permissible scope of discovery, and there is good cause to compel full compliance with these requests. (See Krotin v. Porsche Cars North America Inc. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 294, 303.) RFP 12 seeks pre-sale disclosure documents provided to consumers regarding the 3.5-liter engine equipped in 2017 Ford Explorers. There is no good cause to compel a further response because unlike a fraud claim, which depends on pre-sale evidence of misrepresentations/concealment, a Song-Beverly claim depends on post-sale evidence of an actual defect and willful failure to repurchase during the warranty period. (See Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, 347.) RFPs 18, 19, 22, 23, 44, 45, 54, 55, 60, 61, 66, 67, 70, 71, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 121, Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3034967  36 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  AQUINO VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY [IMAGED]  37-2023-00010449-CU-BC-CTL 122, 123, and 124 all relate to 'engine defects' and 'transmission defects' with the 3.5-liter engine and 6-speed transmission equipped in 2017 Ford Explorers (among other vehicles). Such documents are relevant to whether Aquino's specific vehicle had such a defect, the severity of the defect, whether the defect could be repaired, Ford's knowledge of such issues, and whether Ford willfully failed to repurchase Aquino's vehicle, but there is only good cause to compel the production of such documents to the extent the 'engine defects' and 'transmission defects' are similar to the problems Aquino personally experienced. (See Santana, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at pp. 342–344, 347; Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 144, 154.) RFP 72 seeks organizational charts for various departments at Ford. To the extent the charts will help Aquino understand and explain the hierarchy of various employees referenced in documents produced in response to other requests, the charts are relevant and there is good cause for their production. (See Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) RFPs 89, 90, 91, and 101 all relate to Ford's policies and procedures as respects Song-Beverly. Those policies are relevant to whether Ford made a good faith effort to honor its statutory obligations and there is good cause for their production. (See Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1105.) RFP 102 seeks Ford's document retention policies. To the extent those policies will help Aquino evaluate whether documents produced in response to other requests are complete, or whether there were additional documents that no longer exist, the policies are relevant and there is good cause for their production. (See County of San Benito v. Superior Court (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 243, 258.) RFP 108 seeks Ford's recall policies and procedures. There is no good cause to compel a further response because there are no facts indicating Aquino's vehicle was subject to any engine or transmission related recalls (only TSBs, none of which related to the engine and transmission issues Aquino personally experienced). (See Nelson v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.2d 444, 456.) Conclusion As set forth above, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Ford shall provide a further verified, code-compliant response to RFPs 1, 3, 16, 72, 89, 90, 91, 101, and 102. However, Ford may temporally limit its response to RFP 101 to 2017-present. As limited, Ford's non-privilege objections to these requests are overruled.

Ford shall provide a further verified, code-compliant response to RFPs 18, 19, 22, 23, 44, 45, 54, 55, 60, 61, 66, 67, 70, 71, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122, 123, and 124. However, Ford may limit the term 'engine defects' to only such defects that cause the upper engine mount to leak. Ford may also limit the term 'transmission defects' to only such defects that cause the vehicle to jerk or jolt when accelerating. As limited, Ford's non-privilege objections to these requests are overruled.

No further response shall be required for RFPs 12 and 108.

Ford's objections based on the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine are not overruled. However, Ford shall either withdraw those objections from its further responses or provide a privilege log for all documents withheld. (See Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1129–1130.) Further responses are due within 30 days.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3034967  36