Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00036477-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 31, 2023

09/01/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00036477-CU-BC-CTL CRUZ VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiffs Saul Cruz and Nancy Saldivar's motion to compel further responses to requests for production is DENIED.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. to requests for production ('RFP') Nos. 19-23, 25-30, and 45-56. However, it appears that RFP Nos. 19-23 and 25-30 are no longer in dispute, and Plaintiff now only seeks sanctions. In its initial responses to RFP Nos. 19-23 and 25-30, Defendant asserted several objections (including an attorney-client objection) but then responded by stating it 'is unable to comply with this request' and that it had made 'a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with this request.' However, Plaintiff took issue with the qualifying language prefacing each response-'assuming this request is not directed to attorney-client communications'-and demanded that Defendant either withdraw the language and its privilege objections, or provide a privilege log. Defendant eventually supplemented the responses by withdrawing its privilege objections, but because it did so only after Plaintiff filed its motion, Plaintiff insists sanctions are warranted. The court disagrees. Attorneys regularly make privilege objections early on in a case and in response to discovery, in an abundance of caution. Under these facts, the court declines to award sanctions.

As to RFP Nos. 45 and 46, the court agrees that in some situations, investigation into specific defects affecting vehicles other than a Song-Beverly plaintiff's vehicle is permissible to assess the willfulness of the defendant's conduct. However, these requests are overbroad, as they fail to limit the requests to an identifiable and tailored defect. RFP No. 45 demands all documents relating to 'complaints by owners of 2020 Honda CIVIC vehicles' for 'any of the complaints' Plaintiff's vehicle was presented for repair during the warranty period. RFP No. 46 demands all documents relating to 'warranty repairs to 2020 Honda CIVIC vehicles' for 'any of the components' that Defendant or its authorized repair facilities 'performed repairs on under warranty.' Notably, RFP No. 46 does not even tether the repair efforts to what was done to Plaintiff's vehicle. With respect to RFP No. 45, the inability to isolate a particular defective component that caused the issues with Plaintiff's vehicle, which can then be used to identify the same defect affecting other vehicles, belies the contention the failure to repair or replace Plaintiff's specific vehicle was willful.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2985752  17