Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV02004, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV02004    Hearing Date: December 5, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Gilberto Guerrero v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Request Numbers 1 through 31. 

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 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 June 21, 2024, plaintiff Gilberto Guerrero (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda), El Monte Auto Group, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty, violation of the Song Beverly Act Section 1793.2, and negligent repair. 

On October 29, 2024, Plaintiff moved to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One. On November 20, 2024, Honda opposed the motion. On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff replied. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

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).) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h), further provides that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) 

DISCUSSION 

Meet and Confer 

The Court finds Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer sufficient. (Minute Order (11/19/24).) 

Summary of Arguments 

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Request Numbers 1 through 31, against Honda. Plaintiff contends that despite waiving its objections by serving untimely responses, Honda asserted various boilerplate objections to most of Plaintiff’s requests for production. Plaintiff contend this evinces bad faith and that Honda also waived any ESI objections by failing to identify the types or categories of ESI sources on the grounds of undue burden or expense. Plaintiff contends the requests regarding repair issues involving the subject vehicle and similar vehicles are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims based on the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, particularly as it pertains to the issue of willfulness vis-à-vis the civil penalty available under Song-Beverly. 

Plaintiff further contends that Plaintiff is entitled to all responsive documents from Honda in Honda’s possession, custody, or control regarding Honda’s defenses. Plaintiff contends that he seeks documents relating to Honda’s warranties, that a vehicle’s repair history is relevant to prove Honda’s willfulness in refusing to compensate the vehicle owner, and that Plaintiff is entitled to know whether documents relating to refund policies exist. Plaintiff further contends the prevailing authority makes clear that the scope of discovery includes documents that relate to similar defects experienced by other consumers, and that courts routinely compel production of the documents requested here where the defect at issue is a common one alleged by consumers, citing Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967 (Doppes) and Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138 (Donlen). 

In opposition, Honda contends its objections are necessary based on the phrasing of the requests, and that Plaintiff focuses on categories of information rather than the phrasing of the requests. Honda contends its objections did not preclude responses and that its responses are code-compliant, as Honda provided substantive responses to 30 out of 31 of Plaintiff’s requests. Honda contends it agreed to produce documents in response to Request Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16, and that Honda was unable to comply with Request Numbers 7, 8, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 29, and 31 because Honda did not have responsive documents. Honda also contends it indicated it had no responsive documents for Request Numbers 23, 25, 26, and 28, but that it would still produce confidential and proprietary documents which were not otherwise responsive to the requests as worded. Honda contends the only real request at issue is Request Number 30, and contends that that request is vague, overly broad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence based on Plaintiff’s use of the terms “substantially similar” and “complaints made by Plaintiff.” 

Honda then contends Plaintiff is not entitled to the requested information, as Doppes and Donlen do not stand for the propositions for which Plaintiff cites them. Honda contends that Plaintiff’s assertion that he needs this information to prove knowledge or willfulness is unfounded. Honda also contends that Plaintiff misrepresented Honda’s ESI objections, as Honda did not assert any objections under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, subdivision (d). 

Analysis 

The Court finds Plaintiff’s motion unavailing, and finds that Honda’s responses are adequate. Honda correctly contends that it provided substantive responses to the majority of Plaintiff’s requests by indicating it would comply and produce responsive documents, or indicating that the requested documents could not be located after a diligent search. (See generally, Plaintiff’s Separate Statement; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) 

Moreover, the Court agrees with Honda that the phrasing of Request Number 30 is problematic, specifically as it pertains to the words, “SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR to complaints made by Plaintiff with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE…” (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, Request No. 30.) The Court finds this language vague and overly broad, notwithstanding the definitions Plaintiff provided, given the various defects alleged to be at issue in this action. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, Request No. 30; Compl., ¶¶ 11-15.) The Court also finds that Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, subdivision (d), does not apply because Honda did not assert undue burden or expense as an objection in its response to Request Number 30, or any other request. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (d); Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, Request No. 30.) The Court also finds this request improperly implicates third party privacy rights. (Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Superior Ct. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 621, 635.) 

Given the Court’s findings, the Court declines to address the parties’ arguments regarding the applicability of Doppes and Donlen. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Request Numbers 1 through 31. 

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.