Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV01177, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV01177 Hearing Date: January 18, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 1/18/24
Case #23CHCV01177
MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Document
Requests, Set 1)
Demurrer filed on 9/27/23.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jose Fabian
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Galpin Ford
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion is granted. Further responses are due within 30
days.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of a warranty contract Plaintiff Jose
Fabian (Plaintiff ) entered with Defendant Ford Motor Company (Ford) on 9/25/19
regarding a 2019 Ford Fusion Hybrid (the Vehicle). (Complaint ¶¶14-15). 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 Vehicle.” (Complaint ¶¶15-16).
Plaintiff alleges that he presented the Vehicle to
Defendant Galpin Ford (Galpin) for substantial repair on at least one occasion and
that Galpin breached its duty by failing to properly store, prepare and repair
the Vehicle in accordance with industry standards. (Complaint ¶¶46, 48).
On 4/19/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Ford 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) and (4) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability
(Civil Code 1791.1, 1794, 1795.5) and against Galpin for (5) Negligent
Repair.
On or around 6/30/23, Plaintiff served Ford with Requests
for Production of Documents, Set 1. On 8/1/23,
Ford served responses to the document requests and verified same on 8/11/23. (Bieman Decl. ¶3). After meet and confer efforts failed to
resolve the issues Plaintiffs had with Ford’s responses to certain document
requests, on 9/27/23, Plaintiff 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.
The hearing on this motion was originally scheduled for 12/20/23. On 12/1/23, the Court served notice on
counsel that the 12/20/23 hearing date was continued to 1/18/24 and all
oppositions and replies were due pursuant to the 12/20/23 hearing date. (See 12/1/23 Notice of Continuance and
Order; 12/13/24 Notice of Continuance). On
12/13/23, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition indicating that no
opposition had been received in relation to the 12/20/23 hearing date. On 12/14/23, Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Withdrawal of the Notice of Non-Opposition indicating that counsel for the
parties met and conferred and agreed that Ford would be allowed to file an
opposition on 12/14/23, 5 court days late in relation to the 12/20/23 hearing
date, and Plaintiff would be allowed to file a reply no later than 5 court days
before the new hearing date. (See
Notice of Withdrawal of Non-Opposition; Bieman Decl.).
The parties are advised that they are not permitted to
change filing deadlines ordered by the Court without court approval. When the Court sets such deadlines as it did
in its 12/1/23 Notice and Order, it is to allow sufficient time for the review
and preparation of a tentative ruling.
Even with the unpermitted change of filing deadlines, the reply was
still filed 1 court day late on 1/11/24 because of the 1/15/24 court holiday.
Despite the late filing of the opposition and reply, the
papers were considered by the Court.
However, the parties are advised that future late filings may not be
considered by the Court or may result in further continuances.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s request to strike the declaration of John
Isaac Southerland is denied and Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to the
declaration of John I. Southerland (numbers 1-17) 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.”
The Court finds that Plaintiff adequately met and
conferred before filing the instant motion.
CCP 2031.310(b). Similarly, the
Court finds that Plaintiff substantially complied with the requirements of a
separate statement. See CRC
3.1345(c).
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 Plaintiff’s
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 2019 Ford Fusion Hybrid vehicles equipped with the
same transmission as the Vehicle. Such
documents are relevant to Plaintiff’s 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 seek 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 2019 Ford Fusion Hybrid 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, Plaintiff has 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 on relevance, attorney-client privilege and attorney
work product, in a “Preliminary Statement” to its responses. (See Smith Decl., Ex.4). 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
Plaintiff has assigned to certain terms within the requests are overbroad. The assigned definitions are based on
Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, Ford’s objections based on
relevance are without merit.
The declaration of outside counsel does not adequately
support Ford’s claim that providing further responses and/or production to the
subject requests would cause undue burden.
CCP 2031.310(d). In response to
the requests, Ford did not promptly move for a protective order. See CCP 2031.060(a), (b).
Additionally, Ford has failed to provide a privilege log
in support of the generalized privilege objections. CCP 2031.240(c).
CONCLUSION
The motion is granted.
Further responses are due within 30 days.
The Court notes that the exhibits attached to the Smith
declaration filed in support of the motion are not properly bookmarked (i.e.,
not all exhibits are identified or linked).
See CRC 3.1110(f)(4). The
parties are warned that failure to comply with this rule in the future may
result in matters being continued so that papers can be resubmitted in
compliance, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of
sanctions.