Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV17545, Date: 2024-07-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17545    Hearing Date: July 9, 2024    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Fernando Garcia-Sotelo,

 

 

 

Plaintiff,

 

Case No.:

 

 

23STCV17545

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,

 

 

 

Defendant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: July 9, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion To Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

Moving Party: Plaintiff Fernando Garcia-Sotelo

Responding Party: Defendant Volkswagen Group of America

 

T/R:     THE MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART.

 

PLAINTIFF TO GIVE 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 8:30 am on the day of the hearing.

 

            The Court considers the moving papers, opposition and reply.

 

This is a lemon law case. Plaintiff Fernando Garcia-Sotelo sued defendant Volkswagen Group of America on July 26, 2023, for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

 

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide further responses to his Requests for Production of Documents (Set One).

 

 

            Plaintiff moves for further responses to his RPDs Nos. 16-21. Generally, those requests seek:

 

16

Documents “concerning or relating to any internal analysis or investigation” of the defect Plaintiff alleges in her vehicle (“the Electrical Defect”), in vehicles of the same year, make, and model of the subject Vehicle (“equivalent vehicles”). (DSS, 2:3-11.)

17

Documents “concerning or relating to any communications” Defendant “ha[s] had” regarding the Electrical Defect in equivalent vehicles. (DSS, 17:9-12.)

18

Documents “concerning or relating to any decision” to issue “notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and recalls” concerning the Electrical Defect in equivalent vehicles. (DSS, 25:12-15.)

19

Documents “concerning” customer complaints, reported failures, and warranty claims “related to” the Electrical Defect in equivalent vehicles. (DSS, 33:22-28.)

20

Documents “concerning failure rates” in equivalent vehicles “as a result of” the Electrical Defect in the Vehicle. (DSS, 42:12-14.)

21

Documents “concerning or relating to any fixes for” the Electrical Defect in equivalent vehicles. (DSS, 50:23-25.)

 

Although Defendant provided partial responses to each RPD, each response was accompanied by various boilerplate objections including overbreadth, vagueness, undue burden, seeking information outside the bounds of discoverability, failure to identify categories of documents with particularity, intrusion on confidential information, and attorney-client or attorney work-product privilege.

 

            Plaintiff’s requests are standard lemon law discovery. Defendant’s objections largely lack merit. Defendant also has not provided any clear statement that conforms to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240. That said, in certain areas Defendant’s overbreadth and vagueness objections well-taken. 

 

            The motion is granted as to RPD 16.

 

            The motion is denied in its entirety as to RPD 17 and 18.

 

            As to RPDs 19-21, Plaintiff’s motion granted only as to vehicles of the same make, model, and year sold in California.

 

With each response, Defendant must provide a sworn statement stating its compliance according to sections 2031.220, 2031.230, or 2031.240 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

 

Sanctions have not been requested and are not awarded.