Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV00262, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV00262 Hearing Date: January 12, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 1/12/24
TRIAL DATE: 12/16/24
Case #23CHCV00262
MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Requests for
Production of Documents, Set 1)
Motion filed on 9/6/23.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Taylor Peacock and Austin Smith
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Ford Motor Company
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion is granted. Further responses are due within 30
days.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of Plaintiffs Taylor Peacock and
Austen Smith’s (Plaintiffs) ownership of a 2020 Ford Expedition (the Vehicle)
which was manufactured by Defendant Ford Motor Company (Ford). Plaintiffs allege that on or about 12/19/20,
they entered into a warranty contract with Ford regarding the Vehicle. (First Amended Complaint (FAC) ¶¶10-11). Plaintiffs allege that defects and nonconformities
in the Vehicle, including a Transmission Defect, manifested themselves within
the warranty period. (FAC ¶15). Plaintiffs allege that Ford failed to repair
the Vehicle after a reasonable number of attempts and then failed to repurchase
or replace the Vehicle as required under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (FAC ¶¶18-21). Plaintiffs allege that Ford was aware of the
Transmission Defect and concealed same from Plaintiffs at the time of purchase,
repair and thereafter.
(FAC¶¶31-41).
On 1/31/23, Plaintiffs filed this action against Ford and
Autonation Ford Valencia for:
(1) Violation of Civil Code 1793.2(d); (2) Violation of
Civil Code 1793.2(b); (3) Violation of Civil Code 1793.2(a)(3); (4) Breach of
Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (5) Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment;
(6) Negligent Repair and (7) Violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civil
Code 1750, et seq.). The 1st-5th
and 7th causes of action are alleged against Ford. The 6th cause of action is alleged
against Autonation Ford Valencia. On
5/26/23, this Court sustained Ford’s demurrer to the 3rd and 5th
causes of action in Plaintiffs’ original Complaint with leave to amend. (See 5/26/23 Minute Order). On 6/23/23, Plaintiffs filed their First
Amended Complaint alleging the same seven causes of action. On 12/5/23, this Court sustained Ford’s
demurrer to 3rd and 5th
causes of action without leave to amend.
On or around 5/23/23, Plaintiffs served Ford with
Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1.
On 6/26/23, Ford served responses to the document requests. After meet and confer efforts failed to
resolve the issues Plaintiffs had with Ford’s responses to certain document
requests, pursuant to an agreed upon extension, on 9/6/23, Plaintiffs filed and
served the instant motion seeking an order striking Ford’s objections and
compelling further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of
Documents, Set 1, Nos. 1, 3, 12, 15, 17, 19, 31, 36, 39, 43, 45, 46, 56, 57,
58, 68, 69, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82 and 83.
Ford has opposed the motion and Plaintiffs have filed a reply to the
opposition.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections to the declarations of Jodi Schebel (numbers 1-23) and Matthew Fyie (numbers
1-19) are overruled.
CCP 2031.310(a) provides:
“On receipt of a response to a
demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may
move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding
party deems that any of the following apply:
(1) A statement of compliance with
the demand is incomplete.
(2) A representation of inability
to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
(3) An objection in the response is
without merit or too general.”
A party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the action or to
the determination of any motion made in the action, if the matter itself is
admissible or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. See CCP 2017.010.
Doubts as to relevance are generally
resolved in favor of allowing discovery. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.
(1982) 31 C3d 785, 790.
The subject requests seek documents relevant to
Plaintiffs’ claims against Ford under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act. Requests 1, 3, 12 and 15 seek
documents relating to the Vehicle at issue in this action making them clearly
relevant. Requests 17, 19, 31, 36 and 39
seek documents regarding the Defects of 2020 Ford Expedition vehicles equipped
with the same transmission as the Vehicle.
Such documents are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim under the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act and are discoverable.
See Santana (2020) 56 CA5th 334, 344, 347-348; Bowser
(2022) 78 CA5th 587, 605, 627; Donlen (2013) 217 CA4th 138, 154; Doppes
(2009) 174 CA4th 967, 971. Requests 43,
45 and 46 seek documents (i.e., Power Point presentations, summaries,
evaluations, reports, memoranda, meeting minutes, etc.) regarding the Defects
and deposition testimony regarding such documents. Again, such documents are relevant to
Plaintiffs’ claims in this action. See
Bowser, supra; Santana, supra at 343-344. Requests 56, 57, 58, 68, 69 and 73 seeks
documents regarding Ford’s Lemon Law, warranty, and recall policies and
procedures. These requests could provide
information relevant as to whether Ford violated the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act. See Jensen
(1995) 35 CA4th 112, 136, as modified on denial of rehearing June 22, 1995; Kwan
(1994) 23 CA4th 174, 186. Requests 76,
77, 78, 79, 80, 82 and 83 seek documents and information regarding any
communications with any governmental agencies and third-party suppliers
regarding the Defects of the 2020 Ford Expedition vehicles that are equipped
with the same transmission as the Vehicle.
Such information is relevant to the claims in this action as it could
establish Ford’s knowledge of the Defect.
See Bowser, supra at 599, 617.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs have established the
requisite good cause for production of the subject documents. See CCP 2031.310(b)(1).
A party must separately respond to each item or category
of item requested specifically setting forth objections to a particular
request. See CCP
2031.210(a)(3). If a party objects to a
request, the response must:
“(1) Identify with particularity
any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information
falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is
being made.
(2) Set forth clearly the extent
of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a
claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an
objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work
product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section
2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.”
CCP 2031.240(b).
Further, CCP 2031.240(c) provides:
“(1) If an
objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information
sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual
information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including,
if necessary, a privilege log.
(2) It is
the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that
term is used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be
construed to constitute a substantive change in case law.”
Ford has included improper boilerplate objections,
including objections based relevance, attorney-client privilege and attorney
work product, in a “Preliminary Statement” to its responses. (See Smith Decl., Ex.7). As such, it cannot be determined which
objection applies to which request. See
CCP 2031.310(a)(3), (b).
Ford has failed to establish that the definitions
Plaintiffs have assigned to certain terms within the requests are
overbroad. The assigned definitions are
based on Plaintiffs’ repair orders, how the Defects were described to Ford’s
authorized repair facilities and how Ford’s dealership technicians described
the symptoms and attempted repair procedures.
As noted above, the documents sought are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. Therefore, Ford’s objections based on
relevance are without merit.
Ford has also failed to adequately support its claim that
providing further responses and/or production to the subject requests would
cause undue burden. In response to the
requests, Ford did not promptly move for a protective order. See CCP 2031.060(a), (b). The declarations provided in support of the
opposition do not address each specific request at issue. As such, Ford has failed to meet its burden
of establishing that further responding to the subject requests would cause
undue burden or expense. See CCP
2031.310(d).
Additionally, Ford has failed to provide a privilege log
in support of the generalized privilege objections. CCP 2031.240(c).
Ford has also failed to establish that Plaintiffs should
be required to pay the costs and fees associated with Ford’s further responses
and/or production. First, Ford has not
shown that the fee-shifting provision of CCP 2031.280(e) applies under these
circumstances. Second, as noted above,
Ford has not established that further responding to the requests would cause
undue burden or expense.
CONCLUSION
The motion is granted.
Further responses are due within 30 days.