Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 23PSCV03157, Date: 2024-11-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV03157, Date: 2024-11-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03157 Hearing Date: November 4, 2024 Dept: 6

CASE NAME: Carlos Gaspar v. Ford Motor Company

1 – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; and

2 – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court DENIES the motion to compel further responses as to Request Number 8. The Court GRANTS the motion in part as to Request Numbers 10 through 14, 27, and 28, but limited to the same year, make and model vehicles sold in California, with the same alleged defects. Defendant must provide such further responses, including responsive documents, within 20 days of the Court’s order. Defendant must also provide a privilege log for any documents withheld on the basis of privilege.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to Special Interrogatories Numbers 8, 12, 13, 18, 20, 21, and 22. The Court DENIES the motion as to Special Interrogatories Numbers 2, 7, 19, and 26. Defendant must provide such further responses within 20 days of the Court’s order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law case. On October 11, 2023, plaintiff Carlos Gaspar (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Ford Motor Company (Defendant) and Does 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for violation of subdivision (d) of Civil Code section 1793.2, violation of subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1793.2, violation of subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code section 1793.2, breach of express warranty, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

On September 19, 2024, Plaintiff moved to compel responses to written discovery requests. On October 22, 2024, Defendant opposed the motions. On October 28, 2024, Plaintiff replied to both oppositions.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), provides that on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), provides that on receipt of a response to a request for production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections.

DISCUSSION – Requests for Production of Documents

Meet and Confer – Requests for Production of Documents

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (b)(2), Plaintiff was required to provide a declaration indicating efforts to meet and confer before bringing this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) The Court finds Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer sufficient. (Rivero Decl., ¶¶ 23-25, Exs. 10-12.)

Summary of Arguments – Requests for Production of Documents

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Request Numbers 8, 10-14, 27, and 28. Plaintiff contends Defendant’s refusal to provide meaningful, substantive responses evinces a lack of good faith. Plaintiff contends Defendant’s responses to these requests are nonresponsive statements couched in boilerplate objections. Plaintiff contends the requests are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims under the Song-Beverly Act and that the requested documents are relevant to the issues related to Defendant’s good faith compliance with the Song-Beverly Act, including breach of the express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability.

Plaintiff contends whether the same defects were reported to Defendant in other cars of the same, make, model, and year as Plaintiff’s vehicle is relevant to whether Defendant acted reasonably in Plaintiff’s specific case. Plaintiff also contends the requested documents are necessary to support Plaintiff’s claims because they will establish that Defendant is and has been aware of the transmission defect, that the transmission defect is ongoing, that Defendant lacks any means of fixing it, and Defendant willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act by failing to repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff contends the requested documents may also help preempt any claims Defendant may make regarding he transmission defect either being insubstantial or that it has been repaired. Plaintiff also contends courts routinely compel production of documents similar to those requested here.

In opposition, Defendant contends Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because Defendant responded and objected properly. Defendant contends it produced documents to Plaintiff’s extremely broad requests and advised Plaintiff that documents regarding communications and reports with government agencies were publicly available. Defendant contends the Workshop Manual for the 2020 Ford F-250 is thousands of pages long and contains largely irrelevant information, and that Defendant offered to produce the specific sections of the manual that were referenced during the service or repair of the subject vehicle. Defendant contends Plaintiff’s motion fails to substantiate why Defendant’s responses are inadequate. Defendant also contends Plaintiff’s requests lack reasonable particularity. Defendant further argues Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because the requests at issue are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek irrelevant information. Defendant also contends its attorney-client privilege and work product objections should be sustained.

Analysis – Requests for Production of Documents

Regarding Request Number 8, the Court finds persuasive Defendant’s argument that its access to the Workshop Manual does not permit a simple “print all” type of production. (Opp., 5:13-23.) Also, if only small portions of the thousand-plus page manual are relevant, then it would be improper to require Defendant to produce all of it. (See Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Ct. for Ventura Cnty. (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 51 [an objection of oppression may be sustained where the ultimate result does not warrant the amount of work it would require to comply with the request].) If Plaintiff is unwilling to review the Table of Contents and request specific relevant portions of the Manual, then the Court DENIES the motion as to Request Number 8.

With respect to Request Numbers 10 through 14, 27 and 28, the Court agrees with Defendant that the requests are overly broad, as they are not limited in scope, such as to similar vehicles sold in California. (See Mead Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Ct. (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 313, 317.) The Court finds that the requests otherwise encompass non-objectionable information. The Court therefore will GRANT the motion in part, but only as to the same year, make and model vehicles sold in California, with the same alleged defects. If Defendant seeks to withhold documents on the basis of privilege, Defenant must provide a privilege log.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the motion to compel further responses as to Request Number 8. The Court GRANTS the motion in part as to Request Numbers 10 through 14, 27, and 28, but limited to the same year, make and model vehicles sold in California, with the same alleged defects. Defendant must provide a privilege log for any documents withheld on the basis of privilege.

DISCUSSION – Special Interrogatories

Meet and Confer - Special Interrogatories

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (b)(1), Plaintiff was required to provide a declaration indicating efforts to meet and confer before bringing this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) The Court finds Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer sufficient. (Rivero Decl., ¶¶ 23-25, Exs. 10-12.)

Summary of Arguments – Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Numbers 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 18 through 22, and 26. Plaintiff’s arguments here are largely similar to those discussed above regarding the Requests for Production of Documents. Plaintiff contends Defendant’s refusal to provide meaningful, substantive responses evinces a lack of good faith. Plaintiff contends Defendant’s responses to these interrogatories are evasive, incomplete, and couched in boilerplate objections. Plaintiff contends the interrogatories are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims under the Song-Beverly Act and that the requested information is relevant to the issues related to Defendant’s good faith compliance with the Song-Beverly Act, including breach of the express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability.

Plaintiff then contends the requested information is necessary to support Plaintiff's claims, as the disputed interrogatories seek information concerning Defendant's internal investigation and analysis of the transmission defect plaguing Plaintiff’s vehicle and establishing that Defendant previously knew of that defect but nevertheless failed to repurchase the vehicle. Plaintiff contends the requested information is within the scope of discovery and that courts routinely compel production of the information requested here.

In opposition, Defendant contends it properly answered and objected to these Special Interrogatories. Defendant contends it identified and produced the repair orders that it obtained from the Ford dealership that repaired the subject vehicle. Defendant contends it also identified and produced its warranty claim history information and Field Service Action history. Defendant contends Plaintiff’s motion fails to substantiate why Defendant’s answers are inadequate. Defendant further contends it asserted appropriate objections to these interrogatories, as they seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, as well as potentially seek information regarding Ford’s potential experts’ analyses.

Analysis – Special Interrogatories

With respect to Special Interrogatories Numbers 2, 19, and 26, the Court finds the scope of these requests to be overly broad, as they are not limited to similar vehicles sold in California. (See Mead Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Ct. (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 313, 317.) But, the Court also finds the objections based on privilege to Numbers 19 and 26 to be unavailing, as the existence of a document (or database in the case of Number 26) is not considered privileged, even if the document contains privileged information. (See Hernandez v. Superior Ct. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 293.) The Court finds that the requests otherwise encompass non-objectionable information. However, Defendant identified numerous documents to be produced in response to these interrogatories. Plaintiff fails to identify how the responses are inadequate or what additional information should be compelled. The Court therefore will DENY the motion as to Numbers 2, 19, and 26. If Defendant seeks to withhold documents on the basis of privilege, Defenant must provide a privilege log.

Regarding Special Interrogatory Number 7, the Court finds Defendant identified numerous documents in response to this interrogatory. Plaintiff fails to identify how the response is inadequate or what additional information should be compelled. The Court therefore will DENY the motion as to Number 7. If Defendant seeks to withhold documents on the basis of privilege, Defenant must provide a privilege log.

Regarding Special Interrogatories Numbers 8, 12, 13, 20, 21, and 22, the Court does not find Defendant’s arguments or objections persuasive. These requests merely ask Defendant to identify the person or existence of certain documents. As noted above, the existence of a document is not privileged. (Hernandez v. Superior Ct., supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 293.) The Court therefore will GRANT the motion as to Special Interrogatories Numbers 8, 12, 13, 20, 21, and 22.

Regarding Special Interrogatory Number 18, the Court finds the request prematurely encompass expert witness information and may implicate the attorney work product privilege. (City of Alhambra v. Superior Ct. (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 513, 520-521 [whether an interrogatory prematurely seeks information is within the discretion of the trial court]; Coito v. Superior Ct. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 499, 502 [identities of witness may qualify for either absolute work product protection or qualified work product protection].) However, to the extent, Defendant previously made that determination prior to this litigation, Plaintiff is entitled to discover the identity of the people making that determination. The Court therefore will GRANT the motion as to Special Interrogatory Number 18 as it relates to any decision made prior to the filing of the Complaint.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to Special Interrogatories Numbers 8, 12, 13, 18, 20, 21, and 22. The Court DENIES the motion as to Special Interrogatories Numbers 2, 7, 19, and 26.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.