Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 21CHCV00136, Date: 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 21CHCV00136    Hearing Date: August 19, 2022    Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 8/19/22                                                             TRIAL DATE: 3/6/23

Case #21CHCV00136

 

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE

 

Motion filed on 5/19/22.

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Amanda Dietz and John Francis Dietz

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

NOTICE: ok

 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. to comply with the Court’s 2/17/22 order compelling further responses and production of documents.  Additionally, Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $500 for each day that Defendant does not make full and complete production of the Court-ordered documents after a ten-day compliance period. 

 

RULING: The motion is denied with regard to written responses and granted with regard to production.  Production is due within 30 days.  Sanctions are denied. 

 

This action arises out of Moving Party/Plaintiffs Amanda Dietz and John Francis Dietz’s claim that their 2018 Honda Odyssey, which was manufactured and distributed by Responding Party/Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc., suffers from electrical system defects (“Electrical Defects”) and Defendant has been unable to repair the defects within a reasonable number of attempts.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant knew that the vehicle suffered from Electrical Defects, but still refused to repurchase the vehicle which Plaintiffs claim is a willful violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  Plaintiffs’ complaint contains the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2(d); (2) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2(b); (3) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2(a)(3); (4) Breach of Express Written Warranty – Civil Code Section 1791.2(a), Civil Code Section 1794 and (5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability – Civil Code Section 1791.1, Civil Code Section 1794.

 

On 2/17/22, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ motion, this Court ordered Defendant to provide further responses to document requests 16, 19, 20, 21 and 33 and to produce responsive documents within 45 days.  (See 2/17/22 Minute Order).  On 4/4/22, Defendant served further written responses but did not produce any documents.  Plaintiffs found that the further responses were still not code-compliant and sent Defendant a meet and confer letter.  On 5/4/22, Defendant advised that it would supplement some of its responses and provide further documents within two weeks.  Defendant failed to provide the further responses or production.  Therefore, on 5/19/22, Plaintiffs filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant to comply with the Court’s 2/17/22 order compelling further responses and production of documents.  Additionally, Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $500 for each day that Defendant does not make full and complete production of the Court-ordered documents after a ten-day compliance period.  Defendant has opposed the motion.

 

The motion seeks further written  responses to Requests 19, 20 and 21.  Defendant contends that the request for further written responses is moot because Defendant served further written responses on 8/5/22.  (See Opposition, Ex.E).  In the reply, Plaintiffs contend that the further responses served on 8/5/22 are still deficient because responses to Requests 19 and 20 purportedly limit what will be produced to Customer Retention Resolution System Reports, Tech Line Contact Reports and warranty spreadsheets and response to Request 21 purportedly limits what will be produced to certain Technical Service Bulletins.  However, the further responses served on 8/5/22 are not limited to the foregoing mentioned categories.  Rather, the responses state that “[t]he requested production will be allowed in whole.”  The responses then go on to state that Defendant has searched its systems for responsive documents “including,” not limited to, Customer Retention Resolution System Reports, Tech Line Contact Reports warranty spreadsheets, and or Technical Service Bulletins.  (See Opposition, Ex.E).  As such, the Court finds that the further revised responses served on 8/5/22 are sufficient.    

 

In the opposition, Defendant indicates that it has had issues producing the responsive documents due to a large backlog of document searches and production in a number of matters due, in part, to prior COVID-19 limitations on staff.  Defendant indicates that if production is not made before the hearing, it requests a brief extension for the production.     

 

Any responsive documents which have not been produced by the time of the hearing are ordered to be produced within 30 days. 

 

The Court does not find that Defendant’s conduct warrants the prospective sanctions requested by Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs have not requested sanctions for the filing of instant motion  (i.e., attorney fees and costs related to the filing of this motion).  Therefore, Plaintiffs request for sanctions is denied.