Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00033882-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 Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00033882-CU-BC-CTL MARTINEZ VS KIA AMERICA 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 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, to the extent issues remain regarding Defendant withholding responsive documents until a protective order (stipulated or otherwise) is entered, the court agrees the confidential documents referenced in Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's document requests should be covered by a protective order.

Third, the court also agrees with Defendant that requesting policies and procedures dating back to 2017, well before the date Plaintiff purchased his vehicle in 2022, is overbroad. The court would likely limit the discovery to policies and procedures in place at the time Plaintiff purchased the vehicle.

Finally, with respect to the main issue concerning other vehicle evidence, it has generally been the court's practice to allow such discovery, but to limit it 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 complaints referenced in his vehicle's warranty history.

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

3067271  12