Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00011309-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 06, 2024

06/07/2024  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 37-2023-00011309-CU-BC-CTL MIRELES VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The court is inclined to continue Plaintiff's motion and require the parties to meet and confer in light of the court's comments set forth below.

First, the court is unlikely to award sanctions in connection with this kind of Song-Beverly discovery motion. These motions have recently become common and typically hinge on the degree to which other vehicle evidence is relevant to willful violation civil penalties. The contentiousness of the issue has been exacerbated by the paucity of directly on point California case law.

Second, with respect to the main issue concerning other vehicle evidence, the court's practice is to allow such 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 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, Plaintiffs fail to identify a specific defect, and instead use the very broad 'INFOTAINMENT DEFECTS' and 'TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S)' terms. Such broad terms fall well short of the specificity the court believes is necessary.

Finally, it does not appear the parties have engaged in meaningful meet and confer discussions following Defendant's production of documents on March 14 and 26 of this year. If the court continues the hearing and requires the parties to meet and confer, it expects the parties to engage in a meaningful effort to reasonably limit the requests for other vehicle evidence to a sufficiently specific defect. Both now and in the future, the court will not allow in these cases what it views as overbroad class action-like discovery.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3098374  7