Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 21STCV13950, Date: 2024-02-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV13950 Hearing Date: February 20, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing Date: February
20, 2024
Moving Party: Plaintiffs
Juan A. Terrazas and Ana R. Terrazas
Responding Party: Defendant
Kia America, Inc. (fka Kia Motors
America, Inc.
(1) Motion to Compel Further Responses
to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two)
The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.
The court GRANTS
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production (Set Two)
Nos. 1-3, 6-11, 16-20, and 22-24. The court orders Defendant to serve further responses
and production of documents to Requests for Production (Set Two) Nos. 1-3, 6-11,
16-20, and 22-24.
The court DENIES
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production (Set Two)
No. 25.
The court GRANTS
IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Requests for
Production (Set Two) Nos. 34-35 and 39-56. The court orders Defendant to serve
further responses and production of documents to Requests for Production (Set Two)
Nos. 34-35 and 39-56—limited to vehicles for the same year, make, and
model of the subject vehicle, for the period of the date of purchase to the present—within
20 days of the date of this ruling.
The court DENIES
IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Requests for
Production (Set Two) Nos. 34-35 and 39-56. The court denies Plaintiffs’
document requests for vehicles other than the same year, make, and model of the subject
vehicle, for the period of the date of purchase to the present.
(2) Motion to Compel Further Responses
to Special Interrogatories (Set Two)
The court
considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.
The court DENIES
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set
Two) Nos. 11 and 20.
The court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion
to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 1-10. The
court orders Defendant to serve further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set
Two) Nos. 1-10, within 20 days of the date of this ruling.
The court GRANTS
IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Special
Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 12-15, 16-19, and 22-35. The court orders
Defendant to serve further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 12-15,
16-19, and 22-35—limited to vehicles for the same year, make, and model of the subject
vehicle, for the period of the date of purchase to the present—within
20 days of the date of this ruling.
The court DENIES
IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Special
Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 12-15, 16-19, and 22-35. The court denies
Plaintiffs’ requests for information for vehicles other than the same year,
make, and model of the subject vehicle, for the period of the date of purchase to
the present.
Background
This is a “lemon law” action. Plaintiffs
Juan A. Terrazas and Ana R. Terrazas filed this case on April 13, 2021. Plaintiffs
filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on July 21, 2021 against defendant Kia
Motors America, Inc., alleging causes of action for (1) Violation of Civ. Code
§ 1793.2(d); (2) Violation of Civ. Code § 1793.2(b); (3) Violation of Civ. Code
§ 1793.2(a)(3); (4) Breach of Express Warranty (Civ. Code §§ 1791.2(a), 1794);
(5) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civ. Code §§ 1791.1,
1794, 1795.5); and (6) Fraud by Omission. Plaintiffs allege defects to their
2014 Kia Sorento, which they purchased on October 27, 2013. (FAC, ¶ 9.)
Plaintiffs
filed a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production of
Documents (Set Two) on December 14, 2023. Defendant filed an opposition on January
17, 2024. Plaintiffs replied on January 23, 2024.
Plaintiffs filed
a motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) on
December 18, 2023. Plaintiffs replied on January 23, 2024.
Legal
Standard
Where
responses to requests for production of documents have been served but the
requesting party believes that they are deficient because the statement of
compliance is incomplete, the representation of an inability to comply is
inadequate, evasive, or incomplete, or, because an objection is without merit,
that party may move for an order compelling a further response. (CCP §
2031.310(a).) The motion must be made within 45 days after service of verified
responses in question, or any verified supplemental responses. (CCP §
2031.310(c).) The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration
in compliance with CCP § 2016.040. (CCP § 2031.310(b).)
Where responses to interrogatories have
been served but the requesting party believes that they are deficient because
the answers are evasive or incomplete, or, because an objection is without
merit, that party may move for an order compelling a further response. (CCP §
2030.300(a).) The motion must be made within 45 days after service of verified
responses in question, or any verified supplemental responses. (CCP §
2030.300(c).) The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration
in compliance with CCP § 2016.040. (CCP § 2030.300(b).)
Discussion
Motion to Compel
Further Responses to Requests for Production
Merits of the Motion
Plaintiffs move
to compel further responses from Defendant to Requests for Production (Set Two)
Nos. 1-3, 6-10, 16-19, 21-25, 34-36, and 39-56.
The court
incorporates its standing order and issues the following discovery order:
1.
Defendant
shall produce the “Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual” published by Defendant
and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of
California, from the date of purchase of the subject vehicle to the present.
2.
Defendant
shall produce all documents concerning any internal analysis or investigation
regarding the subject defects in vehicles for the same year, make, and model of
the subject vehicle.
3.
Defendant
shall produce any customer complaints and warranty claims relating to the subject
defects in vehicles for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle,
for the period of the date of purchase to the present.
4.
Defendant
shall produce all documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate
customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act for the period of purchase of vehicle to the present.
5.
Defendant
shall provide supplemental responses in compliance with this order within 30
days from the date Plaintiffs write a letter to Defendant for Responses
pursuant to this Standing Discovery Order.
6.
The
court will award sanctions if warranted by the conduct of any party.
Plaintiff seeks five
categories of documents:
a.
Documents Concerning the Subject
Vehicle (RFP Nos. 1-3)
REQUEST NO. 1
All
investigations, reports, and/or studies conducted by YOU and/or on YOUR behalf
regarding the root cause or failure analysis of any parts that were repaired or
replaced on the SUBJECT VEHICLE and returned by any of YOUR authorized repair
facilities to YOU/or anyone acting on YOUR behalf for analysis. [This request
also requires the responding party to search for and produce responsive
DOCUMENTS regarding any parts that were removed from the SUBJECT VEHICLE and
returned by the repairing dealer to the responding party for root cause
analysis, failure analysis, and/or any other analysis, and to produce a copy of
such reports, analysis, and/or similar documents. This request also requires
KIA to provide any documents showing how the returned part was handled after
its return to KIA (e.g., refurbished, returned to supplier for reimbursement,
etc.]
REQUEST
NO. 2
All
DOCUMENTS, including recalls, technical service bulletins, special service
messages, dealer alerts, reports, call logs (CACCRs), techline logs (TACCRs),
campaigns, extended warranties, dealer advisories, summaries, etc., were issued
for the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This request requires the responding party to produce
the entire document. A production that only lists the name, number, and/or
title of the document is not responsive to this request. This also requires the
responding party to produce all current, prior, amended, and drafts of such
DOCUMENTS, in their entireties.]
REQUEST
NO. 3
All
DOCUMENTS regarding Vehicle-to- Manufacturer (V2M), Remote Vehicle Diagnostic
and Maintenance, Telematics, Connected Car Systems, Over-the-Air (OTA) Systems
and/or other similar Remote Monitoring Systems for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
Defendant contends it indicated it would
produce documents responsive to these requests and has done so.
However, Defendant’s response to Request
No. 1 only consists of objections. As to RFP No. 2, Defendant responded that it
would comply “in part.” (CCP § 2031.220.) Given Defendant responded it would
only comply “in part,” Defendant’s objections are only partial and thus must
comply with CCP § 2031.240, which requires Defendant to identify with
particularity any document being objected to and clearly set forth the specific
ground for the objection. (See id, §§ 2031.240(b)(1)(2).) Defendant
fails to do that here. If Defendant maintains its responsive documents comply
with the request in whole, Defendant must specify this in its written response.
As to Request No. 3, Defendant indicates
in its response that it cannot comply with this request because the document at
issue does not exist. However, the document Defendant refers to, a “Vehicle
Data Recovery Report,” is not a document mentioned in the request. Further, to
the extent Defendant represents an inability to comply with a document request,
Defendant must “set forth the name and address of any natural person or
organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or
control of that item or category of item.” (CCP § 2031.230.) Thus, the court finds
Defendant’s response is incomplete and fails to comply with the CCP § 2031.230
requirements for representing an inability to comply with a production request.
The court
therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Requests for
Production (Set Two) Nos. 1-3. The court orders Defendant to serve further responses
and production of documents to Requests for Production (Set Two) Nos. 1-3, within
20 days of the date of this ruling.
b.
Internal Knowledge and
Investigation (RFP Nos. 6-11 and 16-17)
REQUEST
NO. 6
All
DOCUMENTS, including e-mails, concerning any internal analysis or
investigations by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding ENGINE DEFECT(S) in KIA
VEHICLES equipped with the same 2.4 liter Theta II engine as the SUBJECT
VEHICLE. [This request shall be interpreted to include any pre-release or
post-release investigation and analysis to determine the root cause of such
ENGINE DEFECT(S), any such investigation for implementing a countermeasure or
permanent repair procedure for such ENGINE DEFECT(S), any such investigation
into the failure rates of parts associated with such ENGINE DEFECT(S), any cost
analysis for implementing a proposed repair procedure, any savings analysis for
not implementing proposed repair procedures, etc. Further, this Request
requires Defendant to produce all associated DOCUMENTS, including metadata
where applicable, by the Custodian’s name, job title, and job description.]
REQUEST
NO. 7
All
DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, regarding any pre-release testing data or
analysis identifying problems or potential problems with ENGINE DEFECT(S) in
KIA VEHICLES. [This Request requires DEFENDANT to produce DOCUMENTS, where
applicable, by the Custodian’s name, job title, and job description.]
REQUEST
NO. 8
All
DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, regarding any communications with other
entities involved in root cause efforts, problem-solving efforts or efforts to
identify any actual or potential problem(s), failure(s), malfunction(s),
condition(s) and/or defect(s) regarding the 2.4 liter Theta II engine in KIA
VEHICLES, including with YOUR parent corporation, any subsidiary, any supplier,
or any other third party.
REQUEST
NO. 9
All
DOCUMENTS concerning field reports, dealer contacts, warranty claims, customer
complaints, claims, and/or reported failures regarding ENGINE DEFECT(S) in KIA
VEHICLES, including any DOCUMENTS concerning YOUR response to each dealer
contact, field report, customer complaint, reported failure, and warranty
claim. [This Request requires Defendant to produce these DOCUMENTS in their
entirety and with all fields, columns, tables, rows, attachments, and/or
datapoints, and all available information (other than any identifying customer
contact information), including field names, codes, symptom codes, part
numbers, claim numbers, and/or all other information that exists. This request
requires that the responding party produce such DOCUMENTS in .xls (i.e., Excel)
or Microsoft Access format with only identifying customer contact information
redacted.]
REQUEST
NO. 10
All
DOCUMENTS regarding the ENGINE DEFECT(S) in KIA VEHICLES equipped with the same
2.4 liter Theta II engine as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This request requires
Defendant to search and produce monthly, quarterly or annual reports compiled
from all company sources (e.g., quality, engineering, warrant database, dealer
contacts, customer complaints, parts returned, etc.). This request further
requires Defendant to produce the DOCUMENTS in an organized manner that
identifies the databases from which this information was retrieved and in a
chronological order with a description of all the various columns, codes,
nomenclatures, etc.
REQUEST
NO. 11
All
DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, to or from YOUR agents, representatives, engineers,
employees, or part suppliers, concerning common parts failures for the same
2.4L Theta II engine in KIA VEHICLES.
REQUEST
NO. 16
All
DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, concerning any decision to issue any
notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, service messages, technical
service bulletins, and recalls, concerning the ENGINE DEFECT(S) in KIA VEHICLES
equipped with the same 2.4 liter Theta II engine as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This
request requires the responding party to provide the underlying investigation,
report, and/or analysis that resulted in the issuance of any such notice,
letter, campaign, warranty extension, technical service bulletin, and recall,
concerning the ENGINE DEFECT(S). Thus, such information shall pre-date the
issuance of any such notice, letter, campaign, warranty extension, technical
service bulletin, and recall.]
REQUEST
NO. 17
All
DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, concerning the implementation and
effectiveness of any campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service
bulletins, service messages, and/or recalls concerning the ENGINE DEFECT(S).
[This request requires the responding party to provide the underlying
investigation, report, and/or analysis that resulted in the issuance of any
such notice, letter, campaign, warranty extension, technical service bulletin,
and recall, concerning the ENGINE DEFECT, as well as any DOCUMENTS regarding
the effectiveness of any, campaign, warranty extension, technical service
bulletin, and recall.]
These production
requests fall within the Standing Order. The court notes these requested
documents are
probative of Defendant’s knowledge and willfulness in any refusal to replace or
repurchase the subject vehicle.
The court
therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Requests for
Production (Set Two) Nos. 6-11 and 16-17. The court orders Defendant to serve
further responses and production of documents to Requests for Production (Set Two)
Nos. 6-11 and 16-17, within 20 days of the date of this ruling.
c.
Summary Documents and Information (RFP
Nos. 18-20 and 22)
REQUEST
NO. 18
All
DOCUMENTS, including power points, memoranda, reports, warnings, investigations,
assessments, lessons learned summaries or reports, quality information reports,
engineering reviews, summaries, executive reviews, executive reports, or any
equivalent thereof, that were prepared by any of YOUR engineers or suppliers,
concerning the ENGINE DEFECT(S) in KIA VEHICLES equipped with the same 2.4
liter Theta II engine as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
REQUEST
NO. 19
All
DOCUMENTS, including power points, reports, summaries, executive reviews,
presentations, investigations, assessments, or their equivalent thereof, that
were provided to any decision makers, officers, supervisors, teams, groups, as
well as task force or committee members responsible for quality, issues,
countermeasures, and/or recall issues, regarding the ENGINE DEFECT(S) in KIA
VEHICLES equipped with the same 2.4 liter Theta II engine as the SUBJECT
VEHICLE. [This request shall be understood to include information regarding
defining the problem, the customer effect, identifying or inability to identify
the root cause, test results, corrective action, countermeasures, effectiveness
of such counter measure, summary of warranty costs, failure rates, costs of
potential counter measures regardless of whether or not they were implemented,
and/or any next steps.]
REQUEST
NO. 20
All
executive summaries, summaries, reports, analyses, evaluations, or memoranda, regarding
the problems with the same 2.4L Theta II engine in KIA VEHICLES. [This request
shall be understood to include information regarding defining the problem, the
customer effect, identifying or inability to identify the root cause,
recreating any failures, test results, corrective action, countermeasures,
lessons learned and/or any next steps.]
REQUEST
NO. 22
All
Quarterly Report DOCUMENTS concerning the ENGINE DEFECT(S) in KIA VEHICLES
equipped with the same 2.4L Theta II engine like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
These production
requests fall within the Standing Order as documents concerning any internal analysis
or investigation regarding the subject defects. These requests are relevant to
Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendant fails to sufficiently support its overbroad and
vague/ambiguous objections.
The court
therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Requests for
Production (Set Two) Nos. 18-20 and 22. The court orders Defendant to serve
further responses and production of documents to Requests for Production (Set Two)
Nos. 18-20 and 22, within 20 days of the date of this ruling.
d.
Lemon Law Policies and Procedures
(RFP Nos. 23-25)
REQUEST
NO. 23
All
DOCUMENTS that YOU use or have used, since 2014, to evaluate consumer requests for
repurchases or replacements pursuant to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
REQUEST
NO. 24
All
training manuals and/or other DOCUMENTS relating to the training given to YOUR employees,
agents, or representatives, since 2014, in connection with handling consumer
lemon law repurchase requests.
REQUEST
NO. 25
The
Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals published by YOU and provided to YOUR
authorized repair facility(s), within the state of California, since 2014 to
the present. [This request will be understood to include production of any
versions of such manuals as distributed to YOUR dealerships during the relevant
time frame.]
As to RFP Nos. 23-24, Defendant argues the
documents responsive to these requests have already been produced. But, Defendant
responded that it would comply “in part.” (CCP § 2031.220.) Given Defendant
responded it would only comply “in part,” Defendant’s objections are only
partial and thus must comply with CCP § 2031.240, which requires Defendant to
identify with particularity any document being objected to and clearly set
forth the specific ground for the objection. (See id, §§ 2031.240(b)(1)(2).)
Defendant does not identify any specific documents being objected to and only
lays out boilerplate objections.
As to RFP No. 25, the court finds
Defendant’s response is sufficient. Defendant indicates that a diligent search
and reasonable inquiry was made and that the documents requested have never
existed. This satisfies CCP § 2031.230’s requirements for a representation of
inability to comply with a production request. Plaintiffs respond to this by
only incorporating their arguments from RFP Nos. 23-24. But, those arguments do
not apply to Defendant’s response to RFP No. 25, in which Defendant represents
an inability to comply with the demand.
Accordingly,
the court rules as follows:
The court GRANTS
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production (Set Two)
Nos. 23-24. The court orders Defendant to serve further responses and
production of documents to Requests for Production (Set Two) Nos. 23-24, within
20 days of the date of this ruling.
The court DENIES
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production (Set Two)
No. 25.
e.
Communications with Governmental
Agencies (e.g., NHTSA Documents (RFP Nos. 34-35 and 39-56)
REQUEST
NO. 34
All
DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, regarding any communications between YOU
and any government agency or entity (e.g., the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(“NHTSA”), the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), or any other similar government
agency) regarding ENGINE DEFECT(S) in KIA VEHICLES equipped with the same 2.4
liter Theta II engine as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
REQUEST
NO. 35
All
NHTSA complaints in YOUR possession that relate to ENGINE DEFECT(S) in KIA
VEHICLES equipped with the same 2.4 liter Theta II engine as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
REQUEST
NO. 39
All
DOCUMENTS produced to NHTSA, including any exhibits and attachments, without
any redactions, in connection with Kia’s August 25, 2017 response(s) to NHTSA’s
requests for information pursuant to RQ17-003 dated June 23, 2017. [A copy of
NHTSA’s letter is attached as Exhibit A. A copy of Kia’s response letter is
attached as Exhibit B.]
REQUEST
NO. 40
All
DOCUMENTS produced to NHTSA, including any exhibits and attachments, without
any redactions, in connection with Kia’s September 17, 2017 supplemental
response(s) to NHTSA’s requests for information pursuant to RQ17-003 dated June
23, 2017. [A copy of NHTSA’s letter is attached as Exhibit A. A copy of Kia’s
response letter is attached as Exhibit C.]
REQUEST
NO. 41
NHTSA’s letter to Kia dated September 04,
2018 relating to DP18-003.
REQUEST NO. 42
All
DOCUMENTS produced to NHTSA, including any exhibits and attachments, without
any redactions, in connection with Kia’s October 15, 2018 response(s) to
NHTSA’s requests for information pursuant to DP18-003 dated September 04, 2018.
[A copy of Kia’s response letter is attached as Exhibit D.]
REQUEST
NO. 43
All
DOCUMENTS produced to NHTSA, including any exhibits and attachments, without
any redactions, in connection with Kia’s response(s) to NHTSA’s requests for
information pursuant to PE19-004 dated April 12, 2019. [A copy of NHTSA’s
letter is attached as Exhibit E.]
REQUEST
NO. 44
Kia’s
response letter, including any attachments and exhibits, to NHTSA’s April 12,
2019 requests for information pursuant to PE19-004. [A copy of NHTSA’s letter
is attached as Exhibit E.]
REQUEST
NO. 45
All
DOCUMENTS produced to NHTSA, including any exhibits and attachments, without
any redactions, in connection with Kia’s response(s) to NHTSA’s requests for
information pursuant to PE19-004 dated May 22, 2019. [A copy of NHTSA’s letter
is attached as Exhibit F.]
REQUEST
NO. 46
Kia’s
response letter, including any attachments and exhibits, to NHTSA’s May 22,
2019 requests for information pursuant to PE19-004. [A copy of NHTSA’s letter
is attached as Exhibit F.]
REQUEST
NO. 47
All
DOCUMENTS produced to NHTSA in connection with Kia’s response(s) to NHTSA’s
requests for information pursuant to EA21-003 dated April 25, 2022. [A copy of
NHTSA’s letter is attached as Exhibit G.]
REQUEST
NO. 48
Kia’s
response letter, including any attachments or exhibits, to NHTSA’s April 25,
2022 requests for information pursuant to EA21-003. [A copy of NHTSA’s letter
is attached as Exhibit G.]
REQUEST
NO. 49
All
DOCUMENTS sent by NHTSA to KIA, including any exhibits and attachments, without
any redactions, in connection with NHTSA’s requests for information pursuant to
RQ17-003.
REQUEST
NO. 50
All
DOCUMENTS produced to NHTSA by KIA, including any exhibits and attachments,
without any redactions, in connection with NHTSA’s requests for information
pursuant to RQ17-003.
REQUEST
NO. 51
All
DOCUMENTS sent by NHTSA to KIA, including any exhibits and attachments, without
any redactions, in connection with NHTSA’s requests for information pursuant to
DP18-003.
REQUEST
NO. 52
All DOCUMENTS produced
to NHTSA by KIA, including any exhibits and attachments, without any
redactions, in connection with NHTSA’s requests for information pursuant to
DP18- 003.
REQUEST
NO. 53
All
DOCUMENTS sent by NHTSA to KIA, including any exhibits and attachments, without
any redactions, in connection with NHTSA’s requests for information pursuant to
PE19-004.
REQUEST
NO. 54
All
DOCUMENTS produced to NHTSA by KIA, including any exhibits and attachments,
without any redactions, in connection with NHTSA’s requests for information
pursuant to PE19-004.
REQUEST
NO. 55
All
DOCUMENTS sent by NHTSA to KIA, including any exhibits and attachments, without
any redactions, in connection with NHTSA’s requests for information pursuant to
EA21-003.
REQUEST
NO. 56
All
DOCUMENTS produced to NHTSA by KIA, including any exhibits and attachments,
without any redactions, in connection with NHTSA’s requests for information
pursuant to EA21-003.
These requested
documents are
discoverable as they are probative of Defendant’s knowledge and willfulness in
any refusal to replace or repurchase the subject vehicle, as discussed above.
Defendant contends the requests are overly
broad because they apply to engine defects in all Kia vehicles equipped with
the Theta II engine, regardless of model or year, and not limited to any time
or location. The court finds it is reasonable to limit the document production
to vehicles for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle, for the
period of the date of purchase to the present.
Accordingly, the court rules as follows:
The court GRANTS
IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Requests for
Production (Set Two) Nos. 34-35 and 39-56. The court orders Defendant to serve
further responses and production of documents to Requests for Production (Set Two)
Nos. 34-35 and 39-56—limited to vehicles for the same year, make, and
model of the subject vehicle, for the period of the date of purchase to the present—within
20 days of the date of this ruling.
The court DENIES
IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Requests for
Production (Set Two) Nos. 34-35 and 39-56. The court denies Plaintiffs’
document requests for vehicles other than the same year, make, and model of the subject
vehicle, for the period of the date of purchase to the present.
Monetary Sanctions
Neither party
requests monetary sanctions with respect to this motion.
Motion to Compel
Further Responses to Interrogatories
Merits of the
Motion
Plaintiffs move
to compel further responses from Defendant to Special Interrogatories (Set Two)
Nos. 11 and 20, 1-10, 12-15, 16-19, and 22-35.
The
interrogatories are stated as follows:
a.
Special Interrogatories Nos. 11 and
20
INTERROGATORY
NO. 11:
Provide a list of all labor operation
codes or numbers, problems codes or numbers, diagnostic trouble codes,
replacement part numbers and customer concern codes, symptom codes, symptom categories,
causal codes, correction codes or numbers, as well as the corresponding
description of any such code or number and/or its equivalent applicable to each
warranty repair that was made to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20
Do YOU contend that the problems with the
SUBJECT VEHICLE experienced by Plaintiffs were the result of Plaintiffs’
unauthorized or unreasonable use? If so, please describe in detail all facts
upon which YOU rely for this contention.
As to Interrogatory
No. 11, the court finds Defendant’s response is sufficient. Here, Defendant
makes a CCP § 2030.230 election in its response, referring to “the service
records for the Subject Vehicle, which KA believes to be in Plaintiffs’ possession
and are produced concurrently in response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production
of Documents.” (Def’s Sep. St., 2:26-28.) Under CCP § 2030.230, the responding
party may “refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the
answer may be derived or ascertained,” “[i]f the answer to an interrogatory
would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract,
audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the
interrogatory is directed.”
CCP § 2030.230
requires that “[t]his specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the
propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party
can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” Here, Plaintiffs
do not dispute that Defendant’s description of the writings at issue is insufficient
to locate and identify the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.
As to
Interrogatory No. 20, the court finds Defendant’s response is sufficient. CCP §
2030.220(c) allows a responding party to respond that it “does not have personal
knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory . . . .” Here,
Defendant responds that it “lacks information sufficient to respond to this
interrogatory.” (Def’s Sep. St., 4:6-7.) Defendant states that it “has not been
afforded an opportunity to depose Plaintiffs or inspect the subject vehicle.” (Id.
at 4:3-4.) These statements show Defendant has insufficient knowledge to
respond to the interrogatory at this time. Should there be further developments
in the litigation, Plaintiffs will need to seek supplemental responses from
Defendant. Defendant’s response to this interrogatory at this time, though, is
sufficient.
The court
therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Special
Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 11 and 20.
b.
Special Interrogatories Nos. 1-10
INTERROGATORY NO.
1
Please
IDENTIFY each individual involved in the preparation of YOUR responses to
Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set Two.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2
Please
IDENTIFY each individual involved in the preparation of YOUR responses to
Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Set Two.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3
If any of YOUR
responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set One are not
within the personal knowledge of the individual who verified those responses,
please IDENTIFY, for each such response, the individual who possesses, or
individuals who possess, such personal knowledge.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4
Please IDENTIFY
each of the engineering group(s), department(s), or task force(s) that were responsible
for investigating the problem(s), symptom(s), cause(s) or defect(s) affecting
the Theta II engine in KIA VEHICLES equipped with the same 2.4 liter Theta II
engine as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5
Please IDENTIFY
each of the engineering group(s), department(s) or task force that were responsible
for implementing any countermeasure(s) regarding ENGINE DEFECT(S) of Kia Vehicles
equipped with the same 2.4 liter Theta II engine as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6
Please IDENTIFY
the date(s) on which the individuals or group(s) listed in response to Interrogatory
No. 5 were first notified of these failure rates.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7
Please IDENTIFY
the officers, senior engineers, senior managers, supervisors, directors, and
executives at KIA AMERICA, INC. who directed any internal investigations
regarding failure rates in KIA VEHICLES equipped with the same 2.4 liter Theta
II engine as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [For purposes of this interrogatory, YOU are
requested to provide the name of the person, the position and/or title held at
the time, and the date and substance of such information.]
INTERROGATORY NO. 8
Please IDENTIFY
the date(s) on which the individuals or group(s) listed in response to Interrogatory No. 7 were
first notified of these failure rates.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9
Please IDENTIFY
the officers, senior engineers, senior managers, supervisors, directors, and
executives at KIA AMERICA, INC. who received information concerning any internal
investigations regarding the failure rates in Kia Vehicles equipped with the
same 2.4 liter Theta II engine as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [For purposes of this
interrogatory, YOU are requested to provide the name of the person, the
position and/or title held at the time, and the date and substance of such
information.]
INTERROGATORY NO. 10
Please
IDENTIFY the directors, officers, and executives at KIA AMERICA, INC. who have been
notified of the failure rates of ENGINE DEFECT(S) in Kia Vehicles equipped with
the same 2.4 liter Theta II engine as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [For purposes of
this interrogatory, YOU are requested to provide the name of the person, the
position and/or title held at the time, date and the
substance of such notification.]
These
interrogatories involve the identification of potential witnesses. “Central to
the discovery process
is the identification of potential witnesses.” (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249.) “ ‘The
disclosure of the names and addresses of potential witnesses is a routine
and essential part of pretrial discovery.’ ” (Id. at 1249-50.) “Indeed, our discovery system
is founded on the understanding that parties use discovery to obtain names
and contact information for possible witnesses as the starting point for
further investigations: ‘The Civil Discovery Act also
provides that a party may obtain information by the use of various methods,
including oral and written depositions. [Citation.] The party's ability to
subpoena witnesses presumes that he has the witnesses’ contact information.’ ”
(Id. at 1250.)
As to Interrogatories
Nos. 1-3, the court finds Defendant’s responses are incomplete or evasive. For
these interrogatories, Defendant only responds “[t]hese Interrogatories have
been propounded to a corporate defendant, and thus, are the corporate responses
from information available to KA. Counsel for KA assisted in the preparation of
these responses, based upon information compiled by counsel for KA and by KA
through its counsel.” Thus, Defendant’s responses do not identify the
individuals involved in preparing the discovery responses. Defendant objects
based on attorney-client privilege. However, “[t]he [attorney-client] privilege
does not protect ‘independent facts related to a communication; that a
communication took place, and the time, date and participants in the
communication.’ [Citation.]” (2, 022
Ranch v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1388, rev’d on other
grounds by Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725;
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v.
Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 640.)
As to Interrogatories Nos.
4-10, Defendant contends that identifying the engineering groups and other related
individuals is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant argues that
Plaintiffs define the term “ENGINE DEFECT” in prefatory instructions and
definitions in violation of CCP § 2030.060(d), making the definition
unreasonable, vague, and extremely broad.
Generally,
objections of “undue burden” must be supported by “evidence showing the quantum
of work required….” (West Pico Furniture Co. of
Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) However, the
court may consider the interrogatories themselves and whether they are
manifestly overbroad. (See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior
Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 18-19 [“the trial court must … consider not
only the stated objections to the interrogatories, but also the interrogatories
themselves, as well as the pleadings, and the contentions of the interrogating
party as to the purpose and validity of the interrogatories”].) The court
“retains the discretion to weigh the burden of compliance against the
likelihood of producing helpful information, to avoid duplicative
production, and to narrow demands if appropriate to balance the reasonable
concerns of both parties. [Citations.]” (Volkswagen of America, Inc. v.
Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1497, italics added.)
Here, the court finds Defendant does not
sufficiently support its objection. These interrogatories primarily seek to identify
percipient witnesses and other related information. Defendant gave no
substantive responses to these interrogatories. Defendant provides
no evidence that the quantum of work required to perform these tasks will be so
unduly burdensome that Defendant should be entirely excused from answering
these interrogatories. Defendant does not otherwise propose limitations that
would help narrow the interrogatories. As discussed above, the identification
of potential witnesses and related information is fundamental to discovery.
(See Puerto, supra,
158 Cal.App.4th at 1249-50.) Defendant fails to show it should be allowed
to entirely avoid these interrogatories seeking such information.
The court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion
to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 1-10. The
court orders Defendant to serve further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set
Two) Nos. 1-10, within 20 days of the date of this ruling.
c.
Special Interrogatories Nos. 12-15,
16-19, and 22-35
INTERROGATORY
NO. 12
Describe
all assessments, analyses, tests, test results, studies, surveys, simulations,
investigations, inquiries and/or evaluations (collectively, “actions”)
regarding the ENGINE DEFECT(S) in Kia Vehicles equipped with the same 2.4 liter
Theta II engine as the SUBJECT VEHICLE that have been conducted, are being
conducted, are planned, or are being planned by, or for, YOU. For each such
action, provide the following information:
a. Action title or identifier;
b. The actual or planned start date;
c. The actual or expected end date;
d. Brief summary of the subject and
objective of the action;
e.
Engineering group(s)/supplier(s) responsible for designing and for conducting
the action; and
f. A brief summary of the findings and/or
conclusions resulting from the action.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 13
Describe
all modifications or changes made by, or on behalf of, YOU, in the design,
material composition, manufacture, quality control, supply, or installation of
the subject system, from the start of production to date, which relate to, or
may relate to, the ENGINE DEFECT(S) in Kia Vehicles equipped with the same 2.4
liter Theta II engine as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 14
For each such modification or change,
provide the following information:
a.
The date or approximate date on which the modification or change was
incorporated into vehicle production;
b. A detailed description of the
modification or change;
c. Any reasons for the modification or
change;
d. Any part number (service and
engineering) of the original component;
e. Any part numbers (service and
engineering) of the modified component;
f.
Whether the original unmodified component was withdrawn from production and/or
sale, and if so, when;
g.
When the modified component was made available as a service component; and
h.
Whether the modified component can be interchanged with earlier production
components.
Also,
provide the above information for any modification or change that YOU are aware
of that may be incorporated into vehicle production within the next 120 days.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 15
Furnish YOUR assessment of the ENGINE
DEFECT(S), including:
a. Any causal or contributory factors;
b. Any failure mechanisms;
c. Any failure modes;
d. Any risks to motor vehicle safety that
it poses; and
e.
Any and all warnings, if any, the operator and the other persons both inside
and outside the vehicle would have that the alleged ENGINE DEFECT(S) was
occurring or that the subject system was malfunctioning.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 16
Please
IDENTIFY all databases YOU or YOUR agents, employees, and/or representatives,
use to query or analyze data from your customer complaint database, NHTSA’s
database, warranty database, dealer contact database, field reports, and/or
parts returned database. [For purposes of this interrogatory, the term
“IDENTIFY” shall be interpreted to mean identification of the name of the
database, the location of the database, and the custodians of the database.]
INTERROGATORY
NO. 17
For
each part number that corresponds to an original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”)
of the Theta II engine in KIA VEHICLES equipped with the same 2.4 liter Theta
II engine as the SUBJECT VEHICLE state:
a. The supplier’s name;
b.
The name and job title of each past or present responsible engineer, design
engineer, and supplier quality engineer;
c.
All vehicles (including KIA VEHICLES equipped with the same 2.4 liter Theta II
engine as the SUBJECT VEHICLE), by make and model year, in which the engine is
an OEM part or replacement part; and
d. The corresponding identifiers or codes
used in YOUR databases, systems, or software.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 19
List each database, system, or software
used to store, query, or analyze:
a. Actual or anticipated failure or
replacement rates;
b. Durability data;
c. Warranty data;
d. Part sales, replacements, or returns
data;
e. Quality data, including quality defect
data;
f. Condition, issue, problem, symptom,
cause or defect occurrence rates;
g. Reports from suppliers about vehicle
conditions, issues, problems, or defects;
h. Component quality analysis team
reports, summaries, or memoranda;
i. Results, summaries, or reports of
quality or problem-solving methodologies;
j. Results, summaries, or reports of root
case analyses; and
k. Lessons learned relating to vehicle
conditions, issues, problems, or defect
INTERROGATORY
NO. 22
Please
IDENTIFY by BATES all DOCUMENTS produced in Response to Requests for
Production, Set Two, Request No. 9.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 23
Please
IDENTIFY by BATES all DOCUMENTS produced in Response to Requests for
Production, Set Two, Request No. 39.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 24
Please
IDENTIFY by BATES all DOCUMENTS produced in Response to Requests for
Production, Set Two, Request No. 40.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 25
Please
IDENTIFY by BATES all DOCUMENTS produced in Response to Requests for
Production, Set Two, Request No. 42.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 26
Please
IDENTIFY by BATES all DOCUMENTS produced in Response to Requests for
Production, Set Two, Request No. 43.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 27
Please
IDENTIFY by BATES all DOCUMENTS produced in Response to Requests for
Production, Set Two, Request No. 44.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 28
Please
IDENTIFY by BATES all DOCUMENTS produced in Response to Requests for
Production, Set Two, Request No. 45.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 29
Please
IDENTIFY by BATES all DOCUMENTS produced in Response to Requests for
Production, Set Two, Request No. 46.
INTERROGATORY
NO. 30
Please
IDENTIFY by BATES all DOCUMENTS produced in Response to Requests for
Production, Set Two, Request No. 47.
INTERROGATORY NO. 31
Please
IDENTIFY by BATES all DOCUMENTS produced in Response to Requests for
Production, Set Two, Request No. 48.
INTERROGATORY NO. 32
Please
IDENTIFY by BATES all DOCUMENTS produced in Response to Requests for
Production, Set Two, Request No. 50.
INTERROGATORY NO. 33
Please
IDENTIFY by BATES all DOCUMENTS produced in Response to Requests for
Production, Set Two, Request No. 52.
INTERROGATORY NO. 34
Please
IDENTIFY by BATES all DOCUMENTS produced in Response to Requests for
Production, Set Two, Request No. 54.
INTERROGATORY NO. 35
Please
IDENTIFY by BATES all DOCUMENTS produced in Response to Requests for
Production, Set Two, Request No. 56.
Defendant
objects to these interrogatories on the ground that it seeks extensive
information regarding other vehicles.
Plaintiffs
contend that courts have found discovery concerning other vehicles with the same
problems as the subject vehicle is relevant information.
For the same reasons
discussed above and consistent with the Standing Order, the court finds the
information here should be limited to vehicles for the same year, make, and
model of the subject vehicle, for the period of the date of purchase to the present.
Discovery into other vehicles that are not the same year, make, and model of
the subject vehicle is manifestly overbroad. Plaintiffs fail to show that the
likelihood of producing helpful information from discovery into other vehicles
outweighs the burden of compliance.
Accordingly, the court rules as follows:
The court GRANTS
IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Special
Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 12-15, 16-19, and 22-35. The court orders
Defendant to serve further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 12-15,
16-19, and 22-35—limited to vehicles for the same year, make, and model of the subject
vehicle, for the period of the date of purchase to the present—within
20 days of the date of this ruling.
The court DENIES
IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Special
Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 12-15, 16-19, and 22-35. The court denies
Plaintiffs’ requests for information for vehicles other than the same year,
make, and model of the subject vehicle, for the period of the date of purchase to
the present.
Monetary Sanctions
Neither party
requests monetary sanctions with respect to this motion.
It is so ordered.
Dated:
February 20, 2024
_______________________
ROLF M TREU
Judge of the
Superior Court