Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 23CHCV00390, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV00390, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV00390 Hearing Date: March 6, 2024 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 3/6/24 TRIAL DATE: 12/2/24

Case #23CHCV00390

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Motion filed on 10/4/23.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ford Motor Company

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Omar Maldonado Gonzalez

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order entering the protective order requested by Defendant Ford Motor Company applicable to the production of materials to Plaintiff Omar Maldonado Gonzalez’s Requests for Production of Documents in this matter.

RULING: The motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part, as set forth below.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of a warranty contract Plaintiff Omar Maldonado Gonzalez (Plaintiff ) entered with Defendant Ford Motor Company (Ford) on 4/19/22 regarding a 2019 Ford Explorer (the Vehicle). (Complaint ¶15). Plaintiff alleges that “[d]efects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period” which “substantially impair the use, value and/or safety of the Subject Vehicle.” (Complaint ¶¶16-17).

Plaintiff alleges that he delivered the Vehicle to Defendant Sunrise Ford of North Hollywood (Sunrise Ford) for repair on numerous occasions and that Sunrise Ford breached its duty to use ordinary care and skill by failing to properly store, prepare and repair the Vehicle in accordance with industry standards which was a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages. (Complaint ¶¶28-31).

On 2/10/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Ford for Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty and against Sunrise Ford for Negligent Repair. On 5/19/23, Plaintiff served Ford with Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1. (See 2/23/24 Minute Order, p.2). On 6/21/23, Ford served unverified responses to the requests. Id. On 7/11/23, Ford served a verification. Id.

In response to certain of the document requests, Ford agreed to produce certain documents pursuant to a non-existent protective order. After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the issues regarding a protective order and after Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to certain of the document requests, Ford filed and served the instant motion seeking an order entering the protective order requested by Ford applicable to the production of materials in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents in this matter. Plaintiff has opposed the motion and Ford has filed a reply to the opposition.

On 2/23/24, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents and ordered responses due within 30 days of the hearing on this motion. (See 2/23/24 Minute Order, p.4).

ANALYSIS

As noted in the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Ford had the burden of obtaining Plaintiff’s agreement to enter a protective order or to file a motion for a protective order before serving its responses to the document requests indicating that production would be pursuant to such an order. (See 2/23/24 Minute Order, p.3 citing CCP 2031.060). Despite Ford’s failure to promptly move for a protective order in response to the document requests as required, Plaintiff agreed to enter the Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC) Model Protective Order and have the documents produced pursuant thereto. (See Lopez Decl. ¶2; 2/23/24 Minute Order, p.3). Ford now seeks to modify the LASC Model Protective Order in certain respects and Plaintiff does not agree with the modifications.

The Court finds that Ford has made a sufficient showing that certain documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests for production contain confidential, proprietary or trade secret information and materials which warrant protection. (See Doss Decl.). However, the Court does not find that the majority of Ford’s proposed amendments/modifications to the LASC Model Protective Order are warranted. (See Biemann Decl., Ex.G ¶¶7, 8, 21)

The LASC Model Protective Order already provides that use of the documents is limited to “only for purposes of preparing for, conducting, participating in the conduct of, and/or prosecuting and/or defending the Proceeding, and not for any business or other purpose whatsoever.” (LASC Model Protective Order, ¶8).

The Court finds that modifying the definition of “affiliated attorneys” to attorneys in the same firm as the attorneys of record would place unnecessary limitations on the parties and counsel. (See Biemann Decl., Ex.G ¶7.b.).

The Court finds that modifying the LASC Model Protective Order to essentially require all of the employees of Plaintiff’s counsel’s firm to sign the order is also unwarranted and unduly burdensome. (Biemann Decl., Ex.G ¶7.b.).

Similarly, the Court finds that Ford has failed to establish that the procedure in place for protecting information disclosed to potential mock jurors is insufficient. The LASC Model Protective Order already requires mock jurors to sign the Exhibit A attachment which provides their identifying information. (See Biemann Decl., Ex.G ¶7.f.).

The Court finds that the addition of paragraphs regarding posting, selling, publicizing, etc. documents subject to the protective order are unnecessary because, as noted above, the LASC Model Protective Order already limits the use of such documents/material to the preparation of, conducting, participating in and/or prosecuting and/or defending this action” and specifically precludes the use of such documents/materials for any business or other purpose whatsoever. (Biemann Decl., Ex.G ¶8).

The Court finds the proposed modification to paragraph 21 unwarranted as Plaintiff’s counsel should be permitted to retain a complete copy of their file. Additionally, the LASC Model Protective Order provides that such retention is to be in compliance with the protective order. (Biemann Decl., Ex.G ¶21).

The Court notes the opposition does not specifically address Ford’s proposed modifications to paragraph 7.d. (which extends access to and/or disclosure of Confidential Materials designated as “Confidential” to “videographers, as well as litigation support consultants and vendors retained by the Parties to provide litigation support services (e.g. photocopying, electronic discovery, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits)) and paragraph 7.g. (which precludes disclosure of such documents/materials to experts or consultants currently employed by an automobile manufacturer competitor of Ford) of the LASC Model Protective Order. (See Opposition, generally). The Court finds such modifications to be reasonable.

CONCLUSION

The request for a protective order is granted. The Court finds that the LASC Model Protective, with the modifications proposed by Ford to paragraph 7.d. and g., is sufficient to protect the interests of the parties in this action.

As such, Ford is ordered to prepare and submit a proposed Protective Order in accordance with the foregoing.

Dept. F47

Date: 3/6/24 TRIAL DATE: 12/2/24

Case #23CHCV00390

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Special Interrogatories, Set 1)

Motion filed on 9/29/23.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Omar Maldonado Gonzalez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Ford Motor Company

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set 1, numbers 45-48. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,207.50 against Defendant Ford Motor Company and its attorneys of records, Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP.

RULING: The request to compel further responses is granted. The request for sanctions is denied.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On 2/10/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Ford for Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty and against Sunrise Ford for Negligent Repair. On 5/19/23, Plaintiff served Ford with Special Interrogatories, Set 1. (Lopez Decl. ¶3, Exhibit A). On 6/21/23, Ford served unverified responses to the requests. (Lopez Decl. ¶4, Exhibit B). On 7/11/23, Ford served a verification. (Lopez Decl. ¶4).

Meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the issues Plaintiff had with regard to Ford’s responses to certain of the interrogatories. (Lopez Decl. ¶¶5-11, Ex.C-G). During the meet and confer process, the parties agreed to extend the deadline to file a motion to compel further responses to 9/29/23. (Lopez Decl., Ex.D).

Therefore, on 9/29/23, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set 1, numbers 45-48. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,207.50 against Ford and its attorneys of records, Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP. Ford has opposed the motion and Plaintiff has filed a reply to the opposition.

ANALYSIS

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.

CCP 2030.300(a) provides:

“(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

The subject interrogatories ask Ford to state the anticipated range for repairs per thousand vehicles sold at the time of the release for 2019 Ford Explorer vehicles (No. 45); state the repairs per thousand vehicles sold for 2019 Ford Explorer vehicles (No. 46); identify the five symptoms with the highest repairs per thousand vehicles sold for 2019 Ford Explorer vehicles, and the corresponding repairs per thousand vehicles sold (No. 47); and identify the five components with the highest repairs per thousand vehicles sold for 2019 Ford Explorer vehicles, and the corresponding repairs per thousand vehicles sold (No. 48).

To establish his claim under the Song-Beverly Act, Plaintiff must prove, among other things, that the Vehicle contained a defect, covered by Ford’s warranty, which substantially impaired its use, value, or safety and which Ford was unable to repair after a reasonable number of attempts. See Civil Code 790 et seq.; CACI No. 3201. The information sought in the subject interrogatories is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims because it would tend to show whether a widespread defect or nonconformity, of the same type that Plaintiff experienced, exists in these types of vehicles. The information could also assist in refuting Ford’s affirmative defenses which claim that Plaintiff and/or others misused or abused the Vehicle or engaged in unauthorized or unreasonable use which caused the problems with the Vehicle. If a substantial number of other owners of the same type of vehicle experienced the same defects and nonconformities, such information would tend to show that the defects claimed in Plaintiff’s Vehicle were not caused by misuse, abuse, or unreasonable use.

Evidence as to how Ford handles consumer complaints is also relevant to determining whether Ford willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act which, if proven, would entitle Plaintiff to a civil penalty. Civil Code 1794(c). The information would show how many repairs Ford anticipated with the 2019 Ford Explorer vehicles, whether the repairs exceeded those expectations and, if so, to what degree. In combination with information showing the top five components and symptoms at issue, if they are the same as the problems experienced by Plaintiff, Plaintiff could show that Ford had knowledge about a widespread defect or nonconformity and still failed to act. Such information is relevant to proving whether a civil penalty is warranted because it would tend to show whether Ford made its determination not to repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle despite having information indicating that these types of vehicles contained a defect or nonconformity. See Lukather (2010) 181 CA4th 1041, 1051.

Although the request to compel further responses is granted, the Court finds that sanctions against Ford and its counsel are not warranted under the circumstances. CCP 2030.300(d). Standing alone, the subject interrogatories, seem to be overbroad (one of the objections made by Ford) as they do not seek information regarding any specific defects or nonconformities in similar vehicles. However, because Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint regarding the alleged defects in the Vehicle are not specific (i.e., including but not limited to suspension), the Court finds that the interrogatories requesting information regarding all defects in Vehicles of the same year, make and model relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. (See Complaint ¶16).

CONCLUSION

The request to compel further responses is granted. Further responses are due within 30 days. The request for sanctions is denied.