Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV09356, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09356    Hearing Date: April 18, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 18, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Plaintiff Rodolfo G. Meza

Responding Party: Defendant Kia America, Inc.

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE LIMIT DISCUSSED BELOW.

DEFENDANT TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

            DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action arising out of the lease and purchase of a 2020 Kia Forte manufactured and distributed by Defendant Kia America, Inc. Plaintiff Rodolfo G. Meza brings this action for breach of the express and implied warranty and violations of the Song-Beverly Act.

ANALYSIS

The moving party on a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) must submit “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).)  If the moving party has shown good cause for the RPDs, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections.  (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) 

            After an unsuccessful informal discovery conference, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to RPDs, set one. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has provided meritless, boilerplate responses to each request and as such further responses are warranted.

The RPDs seek information relating to internal analysis and investigation regarding the alleged defects in Plaintiff’s vehicle. These RPDs request that Defendant produce, inter alia, technical bulletins, recalls, internal investigation documents, consumer complaints, warranty claims, and repurchase procedures regarding vehicles with the same alleged defects as Plaintiffs’ vehicle. In response, Defendant made a multitude of objections on the grounds that the RPDs are overbroad, unduly burdensome, seek proprietary and trade secret information, are protected by attorney client privilege, and/or attorney work-product.

“A plaintiff pursuing an action under the [Song-Beverly] Act has the burden to prove that (1) the vehicle had a nonconformity covered by the express warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle (the nonconformity element); (2) the vehicle was presented to an authorized representative of the manufacturer of the vehicle for repair (the presentation element); and (3) the manufacturer or his representative did not repair the nonconformity after a reasonable number of repair attempts (the failure to repair element).”  (Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 152 [citations omitted].) 

A buyer may be entitled to a civil penalty of up to two times the actual damages upon a showing that the manufacturer willfully failed to abide by any of its obligations under the Act.  (Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(c).) Evidence that Defendant has “adopted internal policies that erected hidden obstacles to the ability of an unwary consumer to obtain redress under the Act” may support a finding of such willful failure to comply.  (Oregel v. Am. Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal. App. 4th 1094, 1105.) 

            As Plaintiff may recover civil penalties for Defendant’s willful failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Act, the requested documents are relevant.

            The Court does agree that the requests are overbroad. Though Plaintiff limits the requests for information regarding other vehicles to vehicles of the same make, model and year, Plaintiff has not made any attempt to limit these requests geographically. The requests would require Defendant to produce records regarding all 2020 Kia Fortes in the United States. This would include vehicles not governed by the Song-Beverly Act. As Plaintiff cannot recover for Defendant’s willful failure to comply with other states’ statutes, records pertaining to vehicles in other states are irrelevant and overbroad. The Court will order further responses to RPDs but limit the requests to vehicles of the same make, model, and year that were purchased in the State of California.

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further is GRANTED.