Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV01020, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23AHCV01020 Hearing Date: March 4, 2024 Dept: P
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
NORTHEAST DISTRICT
I.
INTRODUCTION
This is a lemon law case.
Plaintiff Debra K. Robinson (Robinson) alleges that she purchased a new 2019
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque VIN No. SALVR2RX2KH341534 on or about November 23, 2020. She alleges
that her vehicle developed defects. She sues the manufacturer of the car, Jaguar
Land Rover North America, LLC (Jaguar) as well as the dealership, Land Rover
Pasadena (Pasadena) for not fixing the issues or otherwise repurchasing the
vehicle.
Plaintiff
filed the instant motion to compel further response on October 11, 2023. Jaguar
filed an opposition on February 20, 2024. Plaintiff filed a reply on February
26, 2024.
At
issue is the sufficiency of compliance with Requests for Production Nos. 1-32, propounded
and served on Defendant Jaguar as Requests for Production, Set One on July 24,
2023. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
II. LEGAL
STANDARD
A party
responding to requests for inspection must either provide a statement of
compliance, represent that it lacks the ability to comply, or object. (Code
Civ. Proc. § 2031.210.) When a party propounding demands for inspection deems
responses to the responses to be incomplete or evasive, or deems objections to
be without merit, the propounding party may move for an order compelling
further responses. Such motion must set forth facts showing good cause for the
discovery, be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, and include a
separate statement. Such motion must also be made within 45 days of verified
responses or supplemental responses, or on or before any specific later date
the parties have agreed to in writing. (Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310(a)-(c).)
Code Civ. Proc. Section 2031.310(h) provides for the
imposition of monetary sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or
opposes such a motion unless the court finds that the one subject to sanction
acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
imposition of sanctions unjust.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Meet and Confer
Code
Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b) mandates that a motion to compel further responses be
accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. Code Civ.
Proc. §2016.040 details what this requirement entails: “A meet and confer
declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and
good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the
motion.”
Counsel
for Plaintiff, Joshua Kohanoff, declares that he sent a meet and confer letter
regarding the allegedly deficient responses on August 30, 2023. (Kohanoff Decl.
¶ 20, referencing Exh. 6.) On September 14, 2023, Jaguar responded that it
would not be withdrawing its objections. (Kohanoff Decl. ¶ 23, see Exh. 7.) He
then sent a second follow-up meet and confer letter on September 20, 2023. (Kohanoff
Decl. ¶ 25.) Parties did not reach a resolution. (Kohanoff Decl. ¶ 29.)
In
opposition, Jaguar urges that the telephonic meet and confer on September 23,
2023 was only with respect to RFPs 31 and 32. (Wong Decl. ¶ 4.) Jaguar also
notes that it served additional production, on February 20, 2024. (Wong Decl. ¶
3, see Exh. 1.)
Kohanoff’s
declaration is sufficient for meet and confer purposes.
B. Discovery Requests at Issue
At
issue in this motion are Requests for Production Nos. 1-32, the entirety of the
discovery requests served on Defendant Jaguar as Requests for Production Set
One.
C. Analysis
In response to all of the discovery requests at issue, Defendant
Jaguar refused to produce or identify any documents in their possession. The
Requests for Production Set One was served by electronic mail on Jaguar on July
24, 2023. Consequently, Jaguar had until August 25, 2023 to serve responses.
(CCP § 1010.6(a)(4)(B).) Jaguar did not serve verifications to its
responses until August 29, 2023. (Exh. 5 to Kohanoff Decl.) As unverified
responses are tantamount to no responses at all, the Court holds that Jaguar
did not timely respond to the Requests for Production Set One and in doing so,
waived its right to objection. (Appleton
v. Superior Court (1988) 206
Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)
However, Jaguar served additional
responses to the requests on February 20, 2024. The issue of sufficiency of the August 29, 2023 responses is no longer
at issue, as further responses were served February 20, 2024. The additional
responses are not attached to the opposition or before the Court. If Plaintiff
Robinson finds the further responses deficient, she may file a motion with the
Court and argue accordingly.
Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to compel further
discovery responses.
To the extent that it appears that the February 20, 2024
additional production was, per the opposition, only responsive to Request for
Production No. 32, the Court offers the below analysis to the parties in
anticipation of the same arguments being made on a subsequent motion to compel:
i. Relevance
Code
Civ. Proc. Section 2017.010 permits a party to “obtain discovery regarding any
matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter . . . if the
matter is either itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.010.) According
to a leading treatise, “For discovery purposes, information should be regarded
as ‘relevant’ to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating
the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez
v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 33 CA4th 1539,
1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (1996) 48 CA4th 1599, 1611 (citing
text); Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 CA4th 1006,
1013 (citing text)]” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure
Before Trial (The Rutter Group June 2022), ¶8:66.1.)
As
Plaintiff notes, the scope of discovery is broad by design. (Motion p.13: 12, p.
15: 3-4, see e.g., Separate Statement p. 23: 1-14.) The discovery requests seek
information as to repairs performed on Plaintiff’s vehicle, Jaguar’s
investigation regarding the make and model of Plaintiff’s vehicle and Jaguar’s
lemon law procedures, among others. This information is relevant to Plaintiff’s
lemon law claim as to her 2019 Range Rover Evoque, under the broad definition
of relevance.
In
opposition, Jaguar urges that the information sought by the discovery requests
is not relevant as “Plaintiff’s litigation may essentially be reduced to the
whether a product, in this case, the Vehicle, met specifications” and “[t]hese
issues may be determined without reference to everything in JLRNA’s possession
having anything to do with how it responded to repurchase demands of other
purchasers (Requests Nos. 16 to 30) or complaints about other JLRNA vehicles
(Request Nos. 31-32).” (Opposition p. 10: 17-23, see also Opposition p. 13.)
However, as discovery is broad, the information as to other vehicles might be
relevant as to the defects Plaintiff’s vehicle presented or its component parts
or indeed the repurchase process at Jaguar.
Accordingly,
the information sought by the 32 discovery requests at issue is relevant.
ii. Impropriety of Jaguar’s Responses
Plaintiff argues in her motion that Jaguar’s responses are
improper. (Motion p. 14: 4-5.) Specifically, she urges that boilerplate
objections are not proper and that statements of compliance are required. (Id.)
These arguments are well taken. (See CCP § 2031.240(b); CCP § 2023.210(a); Korea
Data Sys. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1517; West Pico
Furniture Co. of L.A. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) Jaguar’s responses fail
to list the documents in its possession that meet the discovery request
criteria. To the extent that Jaguar objects based on attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product privilege or trade secret/privacy, Jaguar must produce a
privilege log.
Plaintiff also presented arguments regarding
undue burden. However, the Court notes
that Jaguar did not object to any of the requests on this basis.
Plaintiff also urges that the discovery she seeks is
necessary to support her claims. (Motion p. 16: 10.) Because this is a lemon
law case, information as to the repairs on Plaintiff’s specific vehicle, Jaguar’s
procedures for dealing with lemon law vehicles, Jaguar’s internal
communications, and knowledge of the issues Plaintiff’s vehicle presented etc.
are necessary to prove a lemon law claim. This argument is well taken.
Lastly, Plaintiff urges that the documents similar to those
she seeks to have compelled are routinely compelled/are deemed relevant to
lemon law claims. (Motion p. 18: 14.) This argument is also well taken. (Donlen
v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143-144, 153; Doppes v.
Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009)174 Cal.App.4th 967, 973, 978-979, 986; Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal. App. 5th 344, 270.)
iii. Overbreadth, Vagueness and Ambiguity Objections
To the extent that the Court considers this objection, the
Court notes that the standard for overbreadth is to be ambiguous to the point
of being unintelligible, which is not met here. (Obregon v. Superior Court
(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)
iv. Privacy/Proprietary Information Objection
Though not addressed by the motion, the privacy/proprietary
information objection to the discovery requests is renewed in Jaguar’s opposition.
In its opposition, Jaguar urges that “the
responsive documents would include repair orders which contain the personal
addresses, cell phone and home landline numbers of individuals who have nothing
to do with Plaintiff’s lawsuit.” (Opposition p. 15: 4-6.) The Court notes that
as Jaguar is an entity defendant, it cannot assert the privacy rights of others
as an objection to its refusal to comply with a discovery request.
Additionally, the proper test for a privacy objection is set forth in Hill v.
National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, which provides that
even private information can be provided in discovery, if there is a compelling
reason for doing so. At this time, the Court cannot evaluate whether or not the
privacy objections will be sustained or overruled. To the extent that Jaguar is
still asserting an objection based on proprietary information, there is no
support for the claim that the information sought implicates Jaguar’s
proprietary information. (The Court notes that Jaguar seems to abandon the
proprietary information objection on opposition.)
D.
Sanctions
Code of Civil Procedure
section 2031.310, subdivision (h) and 2030.300 subdivision (d), requires the imposition of sanctions
against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a
motion to compel a further response unless the court finds the imposition of a
sanction to be unjust or that the one subject to the sanction acted with
substantial justification.
In
her reply, Plaintiff
confirms that she is not seeking sanctions. (Reply p. 2: 17-18- bolded text.)
V. CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses
to her Requests for Production, Set One is DENIED. The denial is without prejudice
to a later, timely motion to compel furthers based upon Jaguars February 20th
supplemental production.
Counsel for Jaguar is ordered to give notice.
Dated: _______________________________
MARGARET L. OLDENDORF
JUDGE
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT