Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 20GDCV01036, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20GDCV01036 Hearing Date: December 19, 2022 Dept: P
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
NORTHEAST DISTRICT
I. INTRODUCTION
In this lemon law case, Plaintiff
Elias Caballero (Caballero) alleges defects with his 2018 Jeep Cherokee. Defendant
FCA US, LLC (FCA) is alleged to have manufactured and/or distributed the
vehicle.
Before the Court is Caballero’s motion for an issue,
evidence, or terminating sanction. For the reasons that follow, the motion is
denied.
II. LEGAL
STANDARD
Code Civ. Proc. §2023.010(g) provides that disobeying a
court order to provide discovery is conduct subject to sanction.
With regard to demands for inspection, if a party fails
to obey an order compelling further response to a demand for inspection, the
court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue
sanction, an evidence sanctions, or a terminating sanction. Code Civ. Proc.
§2031.310(i).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Brief Procedural History
Caballero served FCA with a first set of demands for
inspection of documents in August 2021. Declaration of Nancy Zhang, ¶7 and
Exhibit 1. Finding certain of FCA’s responses lacking, he thereafter sought and
in February 20202 obtained an order compelling FCA to produce further responses
as to RFP Nos. 16, 19, 20, 21, 25-27. Id. at ¶9 and Exhibit 2. FCA
provided supplemental responses and related document production in March 2022. Id.
at ¶12 and Exhibit 3.
Caballero found the supplemental responses to be
deficient and thereafter sought, and in August 2022 obtained, an order compelling
compliance with the February 2022 order. Id. at ¶¶14-16 and Exhibit 4.
On August 25, 2022, FCA served its further supplemental
responses; no additional documents were produced in connection with the
responses. Id. at ¶17.
Asserting that the August 2022 further supplemental
responses are substantially similar to the March 2022 supplemental responses,
Caballero now seeks issue, evidence, or terminating sanction.
B. The Discovery At Issue
In order to examine whether FCA has disobeyed a court
order, one of the RFPs (No. 16) is examined in detail.
Caballero’s contentions in this litigation include allegations
regarding the Jeep’s electrical system and its power train. As RFP #16 concerns
the power train, the definition provided in the RFSs is important. Here is that
definition:
The
term “POWERTRAIN DEFECT” shall be understood to mean such defects which result
in symptoms including, but not limited to: illumination of diagnostic trouble
code (“DTC”) P0456, a leak occurring in the evap system, required repairs to
the powertrain control module, required removal and replacement of the purge
solenoid, required repairs to the Transmission Control Module, repeated
illumination of DTC U1465, required removal and replacement of the ESM/floor
shifter assembly, required performance of the TCM flash update, required
performance of Technical Service Bulletin (“TSB”) 08-054-18, required
replacement of the shift bezel, the circuit being out of range, required
performance of TSB 2104418; and any other concern identified in the repair history
for the subject 2018 Jeep Cherokee, Vehicle Identification Number
1C4PJLCB1JD540316.
Caballero’s RFP #16 asks for
All
DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and
electronic mails, concerning or relating to any internal analysis or
investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding the POWERTRAIN DEFECT in
vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This
request shall be interpreted to include, but not be limited to, any such
investigation to determine the root cause of such POWERTRAIN DEFECT, any such
investigation to design a permanent repair procedure for such POWERTRAIN
DEFECT, any such investigation into the failure rates of parts associated with
such POWERTRAIN DEFECT, any cost analysis for implementing a proposed repair
procedures, any savings analysis not implementing a proposed repair procedures,
etc.]
Here is FCA’s original response:
RESPONSE NO. 16: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
2031.210(a)(2), FCA US lacks the ability to comply with the demand for
inspection because the request is not compliant with Code of Civil Procedure
section 2031.030(c)(1) and does not provide FCA US with sufficient information
to identify the documents or category of documents being sought. FCA US can neither state that it is complying
in full, in part, or lodge applicable objections in the absence of a specific
description of the materials FCA US is being asked to produce. The omnibus
request seeking “All DOCUMENTS… concerning…” is improper because “the custodian
of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane
Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal. App. 2d. 767, 786-787. FCA US also objects to this request because
the phrase “POWERTRAIN DEFECT” lacks foundation and is vague, ambiguous,
argumentative, misleading, nonsensical, and not limited to any part, component
or system that could be subject to an investigation, or related to the
underlying claims in this case. Further, the symptoms listed in Plaintiff’s
“POWERTRAIN DEFECT” may be the result of many causes from various parts and
components, which cannot be identified from Plaintiff’s defect definition.
FCA US further objects to the
production of ESI and/or electronic mail, because it is unduly burdensome, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not
proportional to the needs of this case. FCA US cannot comply with the request
for emails because Plaintiff’s “defect” definition is insufficient for FCA US
to identify any potential custodians and contains words and phrases so common
as to render the results of any such search meaningless. FCA US also objects to Plaintiffs’ definition
of the terms “YOU” and "YOUR" because they are overly broad and
compound, and includes entities not owned or operated by FCA US and individuals
or entities who are not agents of FCA US and not within FCA US’s control. FCA
US also objects to the extent that Plaintiff’s request seeks to expand FCA US’s
discovery obligations beyond those required by the Code of Civil Procedure.
Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.010, et seq.
In February 2022 Judge David A. Rosen determined that
this response was not code-compliant and ordered that a further response be
provided.
FCA’s March 2022 supplemental response is as follows:
Following a diligent search
and reasonable inquiry, FCA US will comply in full with this request and
produce all responsive documents, subject to protective order, within its
possession, custody, and control, namely, documents relating to Technical
Service Bulletins, Recalls, or Special Service Messages concerning the
conditions outlined in Plaintiff’s “POWERTRAIN DEFECT” definition verified by
the repair orders, for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject
Vehicle that could be applicable to the Subject Vehicle. Specifically, FCA US
will produce TSB 21-044-18, TSB 08-054-18 REV. A, TSB - 08-054-18 and all
available back up documents for these TSBs. Additionally, FCA US has conducted
a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and no recalls or internal
investigations have been conducted related to the terms identified in
Plaintiff’s “POWERTRAIN DEFECT” definition and therefore no additional
documents, including emails, exist or have ever existed responsive to this
request. To conduct the above searches,
FCA US utilized the terms identified in Plaintiff’s “POWERTRAIN DEFECT”
definition and queried the following databases where responsive information is
most likely to be found: Carfax, DAPIS, DealerConnect, QNA (Quality Narrative Analyzer),
Global Issue Management (GIM), Global Service Diagnostics (JIRA Server), WIS
(Warranty Information Systems), and Global Claims System (GCS). FCA US states no documents have been withheld
in response to this request.
In the August 2022 order compelling compliance with the
February 2022 order, Judge Rosen noted that this response is not code-complaint
because it is qualified by the words, “namely, documents relating to …” However, the response goes on to say, “Additionally,
FCA US has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and no recalls or
internal investigations have been conducted related to the terms identified in
Plaintiff’s “POWERTRAIN DEFECT” definition and therefore no additional
documents, including emails, exist or have ever existed responsive to this
request.”
This Court is of the opinion that this response was code-compliant,
because FCA did represent that after a diligent search no responsive documents
exist.
Because it was ordered to do so, FCA did provide a
further supplemental response on August 25, 2022. Here is that response:
Following a diligent search
and reasonable inquiry, FCA US has complied in full with this request and
produced all responsive documents, within its possession, custody, and control,
namely, documents relating to Technical Service Bulletins, Recalls, or Special
Service Messages concerning the conditions outlined in Plaintiff’s “POWERTRAIN
DEFECT” definition for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the
Subject Vehicle. Specifically, FCA US has produced TSB 21-044-18, TSB 08-054-18
REV. A, TSB 08-054-18. FCA US will also produce all responsive documents within
its possession, custody, and control, documents related to all available back
up documents for these TSBs, including ESI, if found. Additionally, FCA US has
conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and no recalls or internal
investigations have been conducted related to the terms identified in
Plaintiff’s “POWERTRAIN DEFECT” definition and therefore no additional
documents, including emails, exist or have ever existed responsive to this
request. To conduct the above searches, FCA US utilized the terms identified in
Plaintiff’s “POWERTRAIN DEFECT” definition and queried the following databases
where responsive information is most likely to be found: Carfax, DAPIS,
DealerConnect, QNA (Quality Narrative Analyzer), Global Issue Management (GIM),
Global Service Diagnostics (JIRA Server), WIS (Warranty Information Systems),
and Global Claims System (GCS). FCA US states no documents have been withheld
in response to this request.
Caballero argues that FCA’s further supplemental response
is not substantially changed from its supplemental response. The Court
disagrees. The further supplemental
response begins by indicating there has been a diligent search and reasonable
inquiry and that FCA has complied, rather than that it will.
FCA was asked to produce “electronically stored
information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any internal
analysis or investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding the POWERTRAIN
DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” Its
response indicates that it “has conducted a diligent search and reasonable
inquiry and no recalls or internal investigations have been conducted
related to the terms identified in Plaintiff’s “POWERTRAIN DEFECT” definition
and therefore no additional documents, including emails, exist or have ever
existed responsive to this request.” This response is not, as Caballero argues,
nonsensical, evasive, or contradictory.
Caballero’s challenges as to RFP #19 fail as well. FCA’s
response that it conducted a reasonable search (for customer complaints) using
Caballero’s Powertrain definition and querying the databases where responsive
information is most likely to be found (which it lists), and has produced all
documents in its possession, custody, and control. It is not clear how this
answer is defective.
A similar analysis applies to the balance of the RFPs at
issue.
IV. CONCLUSION
Caballero’s motion for issue, evidence, or terminating
sanctions is denied. FCA is ordered to
give notice.
Dated: _______________________________
MARGARET OLDENDORF
JUDGE
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT