Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 22GDCV00457, Date: 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22GDCV00457 Hearing Date: January 18, 2023 Dept: P
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
NORTHEAST DISTRICT
|
Plaintiff, vs. KIA
AMERICA, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION, SET ONE Date: January
18, 2023 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: P |
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a lemon law case involving a
2020 Kia Soul. Shortly after filing the litigation, Plaintiff Jose Victor
served Defendant Kia America, Inc. with several sets of discovery. At issue are
Kia’s response to Requests for Production, Set One. As discussed further below,
as to all RFPs to which Kia raised objections, Kia is ordered to provide
further responses.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310(a) provides that if, on
receiving responses to an inspection demand, a propounding party deems that
responses are incomplete, evasive, or inadequate, or that an objection is
without merit, that party may move for an order compelling a further response.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Document Requests At Issue
This motion concerns the following Requests for
Production.
NO.
1: All DOCUMENTS which YOU identified in
YOUR response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Special Interrogatories.
NO.
2: All DOCUMENTS which YOU identified in
YOUR response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories.
NO.
3: All DOCUMENTS which evidence,
support, refer, or relate to each of the affirmative defenses as set forth in
YOUR Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
NO.
4: All DOCUMENTS relating or referring
to Plaintiff and/or the SUBJECT VEHICLE whether those DOCUMENTS are in YOUR
possession, YOUR customer relations’ possession or YOUR customer service’s
possession, or in YOUR authorized dealership’s possession. “SUBJECT VEHICLE” shall mean the vehicle
which is the subject of this lawsuit and identified as the 2020 Kia Soul,
bearing VIN KNDJ23AU5L7723811.
NO.
5: All DOCUMENTS which evidence,
describe, refer, or relate to any inspection of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
NO.
6: All photographs and videotapes of the
SUBJECT VEHICLE.
NO.
7: All DOCUMENTS which evidence,
describe, refer, or relate to sale contracts, lease agreements, service
contracts, service agreements, and/or warranties on the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
NO.
8: All DOCUMENTS which evidence,
describe, refer, or relate to repairs or service performed on the SUBJECT
VEHICLE at any time and by any PERSON, including, but not limited to, service
request DOCUMENTS, repair orders, invoices, labor receipts, parts order forms,
computer printouts, parts receipts, canceled checks, billing statements, and
printout of the warranty repair history for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
NO.
9: All DOCUMENTS which evidence,
refer, or relate to Plaintiff’s request for refund of the price Plaintiff paid
for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
NO.
10: All DOCUMENTS that reflect the
warranty repair history of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
NO.
11: All DOCUMENTS which evidence,
describe, refer, or relate to any CONTACT between YOU and Plaintiff.
NO.
12: All DOCUMENTS which evidence,
describe, refer, or relate to any CONTACT with any PERSON, other than YOUR
attorney, and relating or referring to Plaintiff or the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
NO.
13: All DOCUMENTS which evidence or
describe any CONTACT between YOU and any other PERSON, other than YOUR
attorney, regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
NO. 14: All DOCUMENTS which
evidence, describe, refer, or relate to written or recorded statements from any
PERSON concerning the SUBJECT VEHICLE or Plaintiff’s complaints concerning the
SUBJECT VEHICLE.
NO.
15: Each written warranty provided by
YOU for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
NO.
16: Any DOCUMENT related in any way to
determining whether repairs should be covered by YOUR warranty.
NO.
17: All of YOUR warranty claims policy
and procedure manual(s) from 2010 to the present.
NO.
18: All DOCUMENTS which evidence,
describe, refer, or relate to YOUR rules, policies, or procedures since 2010
concerning the issuance of refunds to buyers or providing replacement vehicles
to buyers in the State of California under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act.
NO.
19: All DOCUMENTS which evidence,
describe, refer, or relate to procedures used by YOU for the handling of
complaints by consumers regarding vehicles YOU manufactured or distributed.
NO.
20: All DOCUMENTS issued by YOU or on
YOUR behalf which evidence or describe the policies, procedures, and/or
instructions which YOUR employees and authorized agents should follow after a
decision has been made by YOU to authorize either a refund of the purchase
price, or a replacement vehicle, to YOUR customer.
NO.
21: All DOCUMENTS issued by YOU or on
YOUR behalf which evidence or describe policies, procedures, and/or
instructions since 2010 that YOUR employees and agents should follow when
evaluating a customer request for their money back or a replacement of a motor
vehicle manufactured or distributed by YOU.
NO.
22: All DOCUMENTS evidencing and/or
describing YOUR training materials related to YOUR policy regarding how to
calculate a repurchase.
NO.
23: All DOCUMENTS referencing,
evidencing, and/or relating to YOUR policies, procedures, or guidelines for
determining whether a vehicle is eligible for a vehicle repurchase.
NO.
24: All DOCUMENTS referencing,
evidencing, and/or relating to YOUR training material related to YOUR policy to
encourage customers to give YOU another opportunity to repair their
vehicles.
NO.
25: All DOCUMENTS referencing,
evidencing, and/or relating to YOUR policy defining what constitutes a repair
to determine eligibility for repurchase or replacement in California.
NO.
26: All DOCUMENTS issued by YOU or on
YOUR behalf which evidence or describe policies, procedures and/or instructions
since 2010 which YOUR authorized repair facilities should follow regarding
customer requests for a refund of the price paid for a vehicle or a replacement
vehicle.
NO.
27: All DOCUMENTS which evidence or
describe YOUR Lemon Law Escalation Process.
NO.
28: All DOCUMENTS which evidence or
describe YOUR call center escalation process.
NO.
29: All DOCUMENTS which evidence any
predictive model used to determine if one of Defendant’s vehicles is a
candidate for escalation.
NO.
30: All DOCUMENTS any CONSULTANT
provided YOU from 2010 to present that are related in any way to the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act.
NO.
31: All DOCUMENTS evidencing any
policies, procedures, or guidelines provided by YOU to any agency regarding
what constitutes a substantial nonconformity under the Song-Beverly Act from
2010 to present.
NO.
32: All DOCUMENTS evidencing or
describing statistics for the number of repurchases and replacements Defendant
has made in California in response to consumers’ personal requests (i.e. a
consumer request without an attorney) from 2010 to present.
NO.
33: All DOCUMENTS which evidence or
describe the numbers of owners 2020 Kia Soul vehicles who have complained of
any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff
presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for
repair.
NO.
34: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer,
or relate to all Technical Service Bulletins (“TSBs”) which have been issued
for 2020 Kia Soul vehicles, including, but not limited to, complete copies of
all such Technical Service Bulletins that involve any part, component,
sub-component, system, assembly, or sub-assembly for which the SUBJECT VEHICLE
was subject to one or more repair attempts as reflected in YOUR Warranty Claim
Records, or in the repair orders produced during discovery in this case.
NO.
35: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer,
or relate to all Recalls which have been issued for 2020 Kia Soul vehicles that
involve any part, component, sub-component, system, assembly, or subassembly
for which the SUBJECT VEHICLE was subject to one or more repair attempts as
reflected in YOUR Warranty Claim Records or in the repair orders produced
during discovery in this case.
NO.
36: All DOCUMENTS which describe or
discuss above-average repair rates to 2020 Kia Soul vehicles.
NO.
37: All DOCUMENTS which evidence or
describe sales brochures, literature or any other promotional materials
provided or distributed by YOU regarding vehicles of the same year, make, and
model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
B. Insufficient Statements of Compliance
The RFPs can be generally summarized by category. RPFs
1-4 seek documents as to Kia’s contentions. These are not generally
objectionable. RFPs 5-15 seek documents concerning the vehicle Victor purchased
(the “subject vehicle”) and documents concerning Victor himself. Except as to
possible attorney-client privileged communications none of these are
objectionable. RFPs 16-18 request documents concerning Kia’s warranties. RFPs
19-29 request documents about how Kia handles consumer complaints, repairs, and
the process of determining whether to repurchase a vehicle. While these are
broader in scope, they go to corporate policy and instructions to employees on
the topic at the heart of this litigation. RFPs 30-32 focus on documents having
to do with lemon law, including documents from consultants to Kia and from Kia
to any agency regarding the law, and Kia’s statistics regarding repurchase.
RFPs 33-37 seek documents pertaining to all 2020 Kia Soul vehicles.
As an initial observation, these appear to be appropriate,
targeted document demands. They should not have given rise to such sweeping
objections. Individual objections are analyzed further below but it is noted as
an initial matter that Kia objected to nearly every aspect of the RFPs,
beginning with objections to each definition. As to many if not most of the
RFPs, Kia raised objections followed by the equivocal substantive response that
it would “comply with this demand in full and will produce all documents or
things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody,
or control, and to which no objection is being made.” Such a statement is
circular, and unresponsive. A propounding party can bring a motion to
compel the production of documents when a party has stated that it will comply
with the request. Code Civ. Proc.
§2031.320(a). Here, by stating that Kia would produce documents that it doesn’t
object to, Kia has made it impossible for Victor to know what to seek to compel.
Therefore, for each RFP where the statement of compliance
is undercut by the words “and to which no objection is being made,” the motion
is granted. A further, code-compliant response
is required. That includes RFP’s 1-5, 7-14, 18-24, 26, 34, 35, and 37.
C.
Relevance Objections
These objections are overruled. Relevance is a broad
concept that encompasses not only admissible evidence, but information that may
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Kia’s overuse of these relevance objections is evident in
its response to RFP #1, which asks for all documents Kia identified in its
responses to Special Interrogatories; and RPF #2, which seeks the same as to
Kia’s responses to Form Interrogatories. Kia raises these same objections in
response to RFP #3, which seeks all documents supporting its affirmative
defenses, and RFP #4, which seeks all documents relating to the subject
vehicle. Nothing about these document demands is overbroad. All of these RFP’s seek
relevant documents.
The same is true as to the balance of the RFPs. All
relevance objections are overruled.
D.
Vague/Ambiguous
None of the RFPs qualifies as vague or ambiguous. All of
these objections are overruled.
E.
Overbroad/Burdensome
Kia’s objection as to some of the RFPs is that seeking
“all” documents is too sweeping, and that as to those seeking documents going
back to 2010, the time period is too great. But Kia has not presented any evidence
to support its argument that it would be burdensome to produce all responsive
documents within this time frame. West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v.
Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417 (requiring that an objection based
on burden be supported by “evidence showing the quantum of work required”).
RFP 26 asks for all documents that describe policies, procedures and/or
instructions since 2010 that Kia’s authorized repair facilities should follow concerning
customer requests for a refund of purchase price. There may be no such
documents, or there may be thousands. Absent an evidentiary showing on this,
the overbroad/burdensome objection is overruled.
The argument that such documents
have no bearing on Victor’s particular claim is not well taken. As noted above,
the documents (if any) may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Kia’s reliance on Calcor Space
Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, is misplaced. That
case concerned the sale of gun mounts to a defense contractor. In addition, the case involved a third-party
subpoena rather than a document request from a party. The subpoena contained three
pages of definitions and three pages of instructions and failed to identify any
document but instead sought broad categories of documents in violation of
[then] Code Civ. Proc. §2020(d). Subpoenas for records must specifically
describe each item or be reasonably particularized as to categories or items.
Code Civ. Proc. §2020.410(a). Documents demanded pursuant to Code Civ. Proc.
§2031.030 do not contain the same specificity requirements.
Kia argues that asking for documents
that “evidence, describe, refer or relate” to policies and procedures lack specificity,
do not give Kia enough information about what Victor is actually looking for, and
therefore create an undue burden. This objection is also overruled. The plain
language of the requests seek documents that reflect corporate policies and
procedures.
RFP 32 seeks evidence concerning statistics
as to all repurchases Kia has made since 2010. There has been no showing that
such statistics (assuming they exist) would be burdensome to produce.
RFPs 33-37 are focused on the same
type of vehicle at issue here and thus are not overbroad.
F.
Sensitive Information
Kia has not sought a protective order as to these RFP’s,
and the time for doing so has passed. Nevertheless, the Court is confident that
the parties can work together on a protective order that will cover the
production of any sensitive documents. If the parties cannot come to terms on
such an agreement themselves, they may request the Court’s assistance.
With regard to Kia’s objection that third-party privacy
rights are implicated by some of the requests, none appear to seek documents
that would contain the names of other vehicle owners. Rather, what is sought is
predictive models (RFP 29), documents from consultants (RFP 30), policy and
procedure guidelines (RFP 31), statistics or number of owners (RFPs 32, 33),
and repair rates (RFP 36). Therefore,
this objection is not well-taken.
G.
Privileged Material
To the extent any document is being withheld as
privileged, Kia is ordered to provide a further response complying with the
requirements of Code Civ. Proc. §2031.240.
H.
Sufficient Response
The parties do not discuss RFP #6. As to this request,
Kia raised no objections and instead answered that it has no responsive photographs
or videotapes. This is a sufficient response, and no further response is
required.
The parties also do not discuss RFP #15. Kia did not
raise objections to this document request either. Instead, it provided a
statement of compliance. No further response is required.
I.
Meet and Confer Efforts
The Court finds that the parties’ meet and confer
efforts, while unsuccessful, were adequate.
IV. CONCLUSION
Victor’s motion to compel further responses to Requests
for Production, Set One, is granted as to all RFPs except numbers 6 and 15. Kia
is ordered to provide further verified responses within 20 days.
Victor
is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.
Dated: _______________________________
MARGARET L. OLDENDORF
JUDGE
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT