Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV16394, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16394    Hearing Date: August 5, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Hearing date:  August 5, 2024

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Ana Gloria Interiano

Responding Party:  Defendant Hyundai Motor America (Missing Opposition)

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One

Background

The Court considered the moving papers, (missing opposition), and reply.

The motion is ruled upon as stated below.

This is a lemon law action in which Plaintiff Ana Gloria Interiano (“Interiano”) sued Defendant Hyundai Motor America (“Hyundai”) for violations of statutory obligations pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California Civil Code §§ 1790-1794.8. Plaintiff Interiano filed the instant action on July 13, 2023, which arises from her purchase of a 2023 Hyundai Elantra (“Vehicle”) from Defendant on November 9, 2022. Plaintiff alleges the Vehicle was electrically defective and consequently breached the express terms of warranty thereafter.

On September 13, 2023, Plaintiff propounded the relevant Requests for Production, Set One (“RFPs”) on Defendant, seeking documents relating to Hyundai’s internal investigations and analysis of the alleged defects plaguing Plaintiff’s vehicle to establish Hyundai previously knew of such defects, yet refused to repurchase the vehicle.

On October 20, 2024, Defendant electronically served its unverified responses to the RFPs.

On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion, along with a Separate Statement, and the Declaration of Plaintiff’s attorney, Melanie Maxfield from Downtown LA Law Group.

At an unknown date, Defendant served its Opposition which has yet to be filed.

On July 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed her Reply.    

Legal Standard

“A party may demand that any other party produce . . . a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010(b).) The demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).) “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand,” and “[t]he motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b).)

Discussion

            Meet and Confer

The Court finds that after numerous meet and confer letters back and forth, Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter on December 26, 2023, stating the following:

“I write in response to your correspondence dated December 4, 2023. Hyundai Motor America (“HMA”) will be filing a motion to compel binding arbitration, including a request for a stay of the instant lawsuit. Defendant HMA maintains its objections and its position that discovery is inappropriate in this matter before its motion to compel arbitration has been ruled upon.” (Maxfield Decl.,, Ex. 7.)

The Court notes that Defendant Hyundai has yet to file a motion to compel arbitration, despite stating its intent to do so over six months ago as means of justification for maintaining its objections to Plaintiff’s outstanding RFPs. As such, the Court finds Defendant has obstructed Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts and failed to cooperate. Plaintiff has satisfied her meet and confer requirement and the Court take notes of Defendant’s inaction.

Requests for Production

Plaintiff moves the Court to Compel further responses to FPs 5-7, 11, and 16-21 as follows:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

All repair orders pertaining to the SUBJECT VEHICLE in YOUR possession. [This request will be interpreted to include any and all documents associated with a particular repair order, as maintained by YOUR authorized repair facility(s) in the regular course of business.]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

The warranty repair history relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE as kept in its ordinary course of business by YOU. [This request will be interpreted to include all computer records evidencing monetary amounts reimbursed to YOUR authorized repair facility(s).]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:

The Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by YOU and provided to YOUR authorized repair facility(s), within the state of California, from 2023 to the present. [This request will be understood to include production of any and all versions of such manual as distributed to YOUR dealerships during the relevant time frame].

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

All DOCUMENTS that refer to, relate to, and/or concern any communications between YOU and YOUR authorized repair facilities concerning the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any internal analysis or investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding the ELECTRICAL DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This request shall be interpreted to include, but not be limited to, any such investigation to determine the root cause of such ELECTRICAL DEFECT, any such investigation to design a permanent repair procedure for such ELECTRICAL DEFECT, any such investigation into the failure rates of parts associated with such ELECTRICAL DEFECT, any cost analysis for implementing a proposed repair procedures, any savings analysis not implementing a proposed repair procedures, etc.]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any communications YOU have had regarding ELECTRICAL DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:

All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and recalls concerning the ELECTRICAL DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:

All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to ELECTRICAL DEFECT, including but not limited to any databases in YOUR possession with information from dealers, service departments, parts departments, or warranty departments, and all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim or reported failure.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:

All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning failure rates of vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE as a result of ELECTRICAL DEFECT.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:

All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any fixes for ELECTRICAL DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

Defendant objects to the foregoing requests on the grounds that they are vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. Defendant also contends that they are overinclusive, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. Defendant states that the term “ELECTRICAL DEFECT” is not sufficiently defined by Plaintiff and Plaintiff does not identify what constitutes a “concern identified in the repair history.” Moreover, the definition effectively creates multiple subparts for the requests, making it further objectionable and impermissibly compound. Additionally, Defendant objects on the grounds that the 2023 Hyundai Elantra comes in different engine/transmission/trim combinations, but Plaintiff’s definition (and therefore, corresponding requests), is not narrowly tailored to the actual vehicle in question making any requests employing the language overbroad, vague, ambiguous, and overly burdensome.

Defendant provides that the foregoing RFPs lack relevance because they are not relevant to the subject matter nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The vagueness of the wording evidences an intent to harass. Lastly, Defendant objects on grounds of privacy rights of third persons and/or seeks documents that are protected as confidential, proprietary, trade secrets, and/or commercially sensitive and/or documents protected by attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Similarly, Defendant contends that whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act or any other applicable law is entirely unrelated to other Hyundai vehicles. 

            The Court finds Plaintiff’s Requests relevant to the instant action and that Plaintiff has sufficiently defined ELECTRICAL DEFECT. Plaintiff has also sufficiently defined VEHICLE and Defendant is now instructed respond and engage in the discovery process in a meaningful way. Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s use of the term VEHICLE and claim that such definition fails to specify Plaintiff’s specific version and model is unsubstantiated because Plaintiff has provided the VIN Number. Similarly, Defendant’s objections based on privacy, trade secrets, or attorney-client privilege are without justification because Defendant does not specify how any of the requests violate the foregoing and does not provide a privilege log pursuant to the code. Given the instant action is a lemon law suit, Defendant is mistaken that Plaintiff’s is not entitled to discovery concerning to other Hyundai vehicles because records of other vehicles can lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. It is well understood that Defendant’s knowledge or awareness of defect can be evidenced by records of other vehicles alike. Moreover, the standard of relevance is broad. The requests are not unintelligible, nor intended to harass.

            The Court does find a number of requests could be further tailored to a specific and relevant time period, as some of the requests are presently open-ended in terms of timeframe. Thus, the Court instructs Plaintiff to amend the language to narrow the timeframe when possible, in order to make the requests less burdensome and overinclusive. Additionally, the Court instructs Plaintiff to further or more specifically define the language “a concern identified in the repair history.” In particular, Plaintiff should define the meaning of “concern” in the current context.

            Thus, Plaintiff is instructed to make the foregoing amendments and Defendant is ordered to serve supplemental responses within ten (10) days.

            Plaintiff does not request sanctions so the Court will not award sanctions at this time. However, if Defendant continues to justify its noncompliance by declaring its intent to file a motion to compel arbitration and then not filing a motion to compel arbitration—the Court will deem the relevant motions to compel the result of Defendant’s obstruction and elect to award sanctions on its own motion.

            Lastly, the service of the verifications is only unnecessary when the responses are objection-only.  Pursuant to CCP sections 2030.250(a), 2031.250(a), and 2033.240(a), the party to whom discovery is “directed shall sign the response under oath, unless the responses contain only objections.” Thus, Defendant is ordered to verify its supplemental responses.   

It is so ordered.

Dated:  August 5, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court