Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00045841-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 21, 2024

03/22/2024  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 37-2022-00045841-CU-BC-CTL LOPEZ PARAMO VS KIA AMERICA INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The court will hear from the parties regarding its comments set forth below.

First, even were the court to ultimately grant Plaintiff's motion, or some portion of it, it would not be inclined to award sanctions.

Second, notwithstanding the voluminous briefing and separate statement submitted by Plaintiff, the remaining issues appear to be limited to the following: 1) whether Defendant may withhold responsive documents it contends are business sensitive and confidential until a protective order (stipulated or otherwise) is entered; and 2) whether Defendant must produce documents related to vehicles other than Plaintiff's vehicle.

On the first issue, the court believes Defendant has acted in good faith and consistent with virtually all lemon law cases in which broad discovery (as here) is sought. The confidential documents referenced in Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's document requests should be covered by a protective order.

On the second issue, it has generally been the court's practice to allow other vehicle discovery, but limited to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle, sold in California, and in connection with a sufficiently specific (and usually singular) defect. For example, the issue in Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 972, which is the case frequently relied on by Song-Beverly plaintiffs to argue that other vehicle evidence is relevant to willful violation civil penalties, was an 'obnoxious odor' in the interior of the plaintiff's vehicle. Here, by contrast, Plaintiff fails to identify a specific defect, and instead broadly refers to 'any of the complaints that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented' for repair (RFP no. 45) for all 2020 Kia Soul vehicles in the United States. RFP no. 46 is even broader, as it is not limited to complaints specific to Plaintiff's vehicle, but is instead directed at all documents 'evidencing warranty repairs' for any components Defendant and its authorized facilities 'performed repairs on under warranty.' Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3066152  13