Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV03793, Date: 2025-06-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV03793 Hearing Date: June 11, 2025 Dept: 6
CASE NAME: Ashley Evangelina Castillo, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court GRANTS the motion in part as to Request Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31. Request Numbers 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 are limited to the state of California. The Court DENIES the motion in part as to Request Number 13. Defendant Ford Motor Co. must provide further verified code-compliant responses without objection, including responsive documents, to these requests within 30 days of the Court’s order. Ford must also provide a privilege log for any attorney-client privileged communications and work product doctrine based objections.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is a lemon law case. On November 4, 2024, plaintiffs Ashley Evangelina Castillo and Roberto Jesus Castillo Reyes (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendants Ford Motor Company (Ford), WC Performance Ford, Inc., d/b/a Performance Ford, 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 April 28, 2025, Plaintiffs moved to compel further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One. On May 29, 2025, Ford opposed the motion. On June 4, 2025, Plaintiffs replied.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), provides that on receipt of responses to 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 “[t]he 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 Plaintiffs’ efforts to meet and confer sufficient. (Minute Order (4/14/25).)
Summary of Arguments
Plaintiffs seek to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Numbers 1 through 31. Plaintiffs contend Ford’s boilerplate objections establish obstructionist tactics and lack of good faith which constitute a waiver of objections, particularly relating to ESI. Plaintiffs contend Ford responded to a vast majority of the disputed requests using the same boilerplate objections, and contends that Ford’s failure to provide adequate responses evinces a lack of good faith. Plaintiffs contend Ford’s undue burden objections fail because Ford did not identify the types or categories of ESI sources that are not reasonably accessible. Plaintiffs contend their requests are directly relevant to their claims because the Song-Beverly Act renders documents pertaining to a plaintiff’s specific repair issues and the repair issues of other similarly situated vehicle owners relevant. Plaintiffs contend their requests seek to obtain admissible evidence of similar prior vehicle defects. Plaintiffs also contend evidence pertaining to willfulness is relevant to support penalties under the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiffs contend the requested documents are vitally important to this case for expert testimony and determining how Ford handles customer complaints. Plaintiffs finally contend that the prevailing authority supports Plaintiffs’ discovery efforts.
In opposition, Ford contends Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied because Ford served complete and code-compliant responses, supplemental responses, and well-founded objections. Ford contends Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied as to Request Numbers 1 through 14 and 31 because Ford produced and has agreed to produce relevant documents, and Plaintiffs have failed to identify additional responsive documents that Ford has not produced. Ford contends Plaintiffs fail to explain why Ford’s responses and document offerings are incomplete.
Ford contends Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied as to Request Numbers 15 through 18, 20 through 21, and 23 through 29 because Ford agreed to produce and already has produced the very documents Plaintiffs requested, including Ford’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual, policies and procedures for Ford’s Customer Relationship Center, and RAV Policy and Procedure Manual. Ford indicates it referred plaintiffs to the Owner’s Manual and Warranty for the model of the subjective vehicle in response to Request Number and otherwise objected because the request sought matters outside the scope of the complaint. Ford contends documents from 2020 to the present are overbroad and seek irrelevant documents because they are not limited to the relevant timeframe or the subject vehicle.
Ford then contends Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied as to Request Number 30 regarding other customers’ complaints because Ford has already produced the very documents Plaintiffs requested. Ford also contends Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied as to Request Numbers 19 and 22 because they are overly broad and seek irrelevant information, and Ford’s objections are proper. Ford contends Request Numbers 19 and 22 are not reasonably limited in time or scope. Ford further contends its attorney-client privilege and work product objections to Numbers 1 through 3, 6, 8 through 9, and 12 through 30 should be sustained.
Analysis
While Ford contends it has produced or agreed to produce relevant documents, it is not fully clear to the Court what Ford has produced thus far. Ford claiming that it has agreed to produce documents does not help here, as Ford should have already produced all relevant unobjectionable documents by the time and at the location designated in the requests. (Opp., 9:5-12:9; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.260, subd. (a), 2031.280, subd. (b).) The Court also finds this argument is an attempt to obfuscate the extent to which Ford has complied with Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.
The Court finds many of Ford’s responses evasive and incomplete, and many of its objections improper. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) Request Numbers 1, 3-18, 20-21, 23-29, and 31 each say at the beginning, “Ford will comply with this Request, in part, and will produce all documents responsive to this Request that are located following a reasonable and diligent search and to which no objection is made.” (Separate Statement, Nos. 1, 3-18, 20-21, 23-29, and 31, italics added.) Ford was already supposed to have conducted a reasonable and diligent search before it responded to Plaintiffs’ requests. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.220-2031.230.)
In response to Request Numbers 3-4, 6-7, and 12, Ford states that it objects on the grounds that the documents requested may be in the possession of independent dealerships and other third parties and are not in Ford’s possession, custody, or control. (Separate Statement, Request Nos. 3-4, 6-7, 12.) Again, Ford bore the initial obligation of conducting a reasonable and diligent search regarding whether the documents requested were within its possession, custody, or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) If the requested documents could not be found in Ford’s possession, custody, or control after a reasonable inquiry and diligent search, Ford was obligated to state why such documents could not be found and identify in whose possession, custody, or control Ford believes such documents may be found, along with those other parties’ names and addresses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) While Ford stated it conducted a reasonable inquiry and diligent search initially in response to Request Number 12, it then stated that the requested documents may be in the possession of its independent dealerships and therefore does not fully comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230. (Ibid.)
Additionally, none of Ford’s responses contain a definitive statement whether it was producing all documents, subject to any objections, in its possession, custody, or control, as is required under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)
The Court further finds Ford’s objections of overly broad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant as largely improper. Plaintiffs correctly contend that Ford provided no indication about the amount of work that would be required to respond for purposes of an unduly burdensome objection. “The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required…” (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Ct. In & For Los Angeles Cnty. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417 (West Pico).) The Court also finds Plaintiffs’ requests for production seek sufficiently relevant information. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010; Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790 [“in accordance with the liberal policies underlying the discovery procedures, doubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery…”].) The Court further finds the time limitations from 2020 to the present for Request Numbers 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 sufficiently close in time to the relevant period in question, such that they are not overly broad.
With respect to Request Number 2, the Court agrees that although it is broad in seeking all documents relating to each of Ford’s affirmative defenses, it is not improper because it neither asks Ford to disclose its theory of defenses nor to disclose all facts Ford intends to produce at trial in support of its defenses or otherwise improperly “tie down” Ford. (See Burke v. Superior Ct. of Sacramento Cnty. (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 286 [finding interrogatory that sought all facts in support of the defendant’s denial of all allegations in the complaint was wide-ranging but not ambiguous, unclear, or objectionable as a “shotgun” interrogatory seeking the defendant to divulge its entire theory of the defense, and did not call for facts the defendant intended to produce at trial in support of its defenses or improperly seek to “tie down” the defendant].)
With respect to Request Number 30, the Court notes Ford’s production of the supplemental documents on April 22, 2025, but also notes that Ford did not verify the supplemental responses. (Segarini-Jeffries Decl., ¶¶ 13-14, Ex. B; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250, subd. (a).) “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. [Citation.]”. (Appleton v. Superior Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court does find some issues with some of Plaintiffs’ requests. With respect to Request Number 13, the request is not limited in time or subject matter. Moreover, some of the documents requested are equally available to Plaintiffs since it seeks documents involving communications between Plaintiffs and Ford. (Separate Statement, No. 13; see Pantzalas v. Superior Ct. of Los Angeles Cnty. (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 499, 503 [if information is equally available to both parties, burden is on party seeking the information].) Thus, for these reasons, the motion is DENIED as to Request Number 13.
The Court further finds that Request Numbers 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29, which generally involve Ford’s policies relating to lemon law complaints, should be limited to the state of California. (See Separate Statement, Nos. 16-17, 19, 21, 23-28.)
With respect to attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine, the Court agrees with Ford that many of Plaintiffs’ requests implicate attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work product. But, Ford can address this by providing a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).)
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion in part as to Request Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31. Request Numbers 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 are limited to the state of California. The Court DENIES the motion as to Request Number 13. Defendant Ford Motor Co. must provide further verified code-compliant responses, including responsive documents, to these requests within 30 days of the Court’s order. Ford must also provide a privilege log for any attorney-client privileged communications and work product doctrine based objections.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion in part as to Request Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31. Request Numbers 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 are limited to the state of California. The Court DENIES the motion as to Request Number 13. Defendant Ford Motor Co. must provide further verified code-compliant responses without objection, including responsive documents, to these requests within 30 days of the Court’s order. Ford must also provide a privilege log for any attorney-client privileged communications and work product doctrine based objections.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.