Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV18084, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18084    Hearing Date: June 14, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: June 14, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Plaintiff Matthew V. Gomez

Responding Party: Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

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 Plaintiff's purchase of a 2022 Mercedes-Benz GLE53C4 manufactured and distributed by Defendant Mercedes-Benz.

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 Defendant produce, inter alia, technical bulletins, recalls, internal investigation documents, consumer complaints, and warranty claims 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 Song-Beverly Act, however, applies only to California consumer transactions. The requests related to other vehicles/complaints also must be limited to vehicles purchased in California.

In opposition, Defendant asserts the motion is untimely because it was not served within 45 days of receipt of responses. The Court conducted an informal discovery conference concerning these requests on January 10, 2024. Defendant’s written statement in anticipation of the IDC addressed the issues on the merits, and the Court discussed the merits with the parties at the IDC. At the conclusion of the IDC, the Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to bring this motion. Plaintiff represents that the parties agreed to this extension. There is no indication in the Court's records that Defendant objected to the extension, or that Defendant would assert that any motion filed before that 30-day deadline would be untimely. Defendant does not address the IDC or the 30-day extension in its opposition. The Court finds there was an agreement to extend the deadline.

Plaintiff served the motion and attempted to file the motion on February 8, 2024. The initial filing was inadvertently rejected, Plaintiff refiled the motion on February 29, 2024. As Plaintiff served the motion within 30 days of the IDC, the motion is timely.