Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV02019, Date: 2025-01-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV02019 Hearing Date: January 15, 2025 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 1/15/25
TRIAL DATE: 6/30/25
Case #23CHCV02019
MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Requests for
Production of Documents, Set 1)
Motion filed on 8/5/24.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jennifer Vazquez
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc.
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion is moot, in part, and denied,
in part.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of Plaintiff Jennifer Vazquez’s
(Plaintiff) purchase of a 2022 Honda HR-V (the Vehicle) which was manufactured
and warranted by Defendant America Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges that the Vehicle contains
defects and nonconformities to the warranty provided by Defendant and that
Defendant was unable to eliminate the problems with the Vehicle within the
warranty period. Additionally, although
Plaintiff requested that Defendant repurchase or replace the Vehicle, Defendant
failed to promptly do either.
As a result, on 7/11/23, Plaintiff filed this action against
Defendant for: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty
and (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty. On 8/14/23, Defendant answered the
complaint.
On 11/21/23, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for
Production of Documents, Set 1. (Tran
Decl., Ex.A). On 1/24/24, Defendant
served its responses to the discovery. (Id.,
Ex.B). After meet and confer efforts
failed to resolve the issues Plaintiff had with Defendant’s responses to
Requests 18, 45 and 46, on 8/5/24, pursuant to the parties agreed upon
deadline, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order
compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for
Production of Documents, Set 1, Nos. 18 and 45-46. (See Tran Decl., Ex.C-D). Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions
against Defendant and its attorneys of record, Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, LLP in the amount of $2,185.00.
Defendant has opposed the motion and requests sanctions against
Plaintiff and her counsel. 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 2031.310 provides, in relevant part:
“(a) 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.
. .
.
(c) Unless notice of this motion is
given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any
supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to
which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the
demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”
To prevail on a claim brought under the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act (the Act), a plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a
preponderance of the evidence, several elements, including nonconformity of a
vehicle that substantially impaired its use, value or safety; presentation of
the vehicle to the manufacturer or authorized representative for repair; and
failure to repair the defect after a reasonable number of attempts. Ibrahim (1989) 214 CA3d 878, 886-887; Oregel
(2001) 90 CA4th 1094, 1101; Lundy (2001) 87 CA4th 472, 478.
Additionally, under the Act, a buyer may recover damages
and other relief when there has been a breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability if the vehicle was sold with a known defect. Civil Code 1794(a); Mexia (2009) 174
CA4th 1297, 1304-1305. Further, a buyer
may be entitled to a civil penalty upon a showing that the manufacturer
willfully failed to abide by any of its obligations under the Act. Civil Code 1794(c).
Request 18 seeks “[t]he operative Franchise Agreement, if
any, on the date of sale of the SUBJECT VEHICLE between YOU and the dealership
that sold the SUBJECT VEHICLE to Plaintiff(s).”
Since Defendant agreed to provide a copy of its sample Franchise
Agreement in response to Request 18, the reply indicates that Plaintiff no
longer seeks a further response to this request. (See Reply, p.1:5-7).
Request 45 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS evidencing complaints
by owners of the 2022 Honda HR-V vehicle regarding any of the complaints that
the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented to YOUR or YOUR authorized repair facilities
for repair during the warranty period.”
Defendant’s objections that Request 45 is vague and
ambiguous has merit. As worded, it is
unclear what documents Plaintiff is seeking by way of this request. As noted above, the request seeks documents “evidencing
complaints by owners of the 2022 Honda HR-V vehicle…” Is Plaintiff seeking documents evidencing her
own complaints regarding the Vehicle which is the subject of this action? Or, is Plaintiff seeking documents regarding
complaints from other owners of the Vehicle which is the subject of this
action? Or, is Plaintiff seeking documents
evidencing the same types of complaints made by Plaintiff regarding the Vehicle
by owners of other 2022 Honda HR-V vehicles?
Request 46 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS evidencing warranty
repairs to 2022 Honda HR-V vehicles regarding any of the components that YOU or
YOUR authorized repair facilities performed repairs on under warranty.”
Defendant’s objections that request is overbroad, unduly
burdensome, harassing and seeks information not relevant or reasonably
calculated to lease to the discovery of admissible evidence are valid. The request is not limited to warranty
repairs for the same or similar complaints made by Plaintiff regarding the
Vehicle which is the subject of this action, but rather all repairs made to vehicles
of the same year and model as Plaintiff’s Vehicle.
The under the circumstances. As noted above, Defendant agreed to provide a
further response to Request 18 after the motion was filed and Defendant’s
objections to Requests 45 and 46 are valid.
Therefore, the Court finds neither party was entirely successful on the
motion. As such, imposing sanctions on either party under the
circumstances would be unjust. See
CCP 2031.310(h).
CONCLUSION
The motion is moot as to Request 18 as Plaintiff
indicates that she is not requesting a further response to that request
pursuant to Defendant’s agreement to provide a copy of its sample Franchise
Agreement.
The motion is denied as to Requests 45 and 46.
Both Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s requests for sanctions
are denied.