Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV00701, Date: 2025-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV00701    Hearing Date: April 22, 2025    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 4/22/25                                                        TRIAL DATE: 5/11/26

Case #24CHCV00701

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Request for Production of Documents, Set 2)

 

Motion filed on 11/22/24.

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Gina M. Elias and Rosalinda Herrera

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant FCA US LLC

NOTICE: ok

 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant FCA US LLC to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set 2.

 

RULING: The motion is granted. 

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

This action arises out of Plaintiffs Gina M. Elias and Rosalinda Herrera’s (Plaintiffs) purchase of a new 2019 Dodge Ram 1500 (the Vehicle) on 9/13/19.  The Vehicle was sold with Defendant FCA US LLC’s (FCA) new vehicle express warranty covering all systems for the earlier of 3-years or 36,000 miles and certain “powertrain” (transmission and engine) components for the earlier of 5-years or 60,000 miles. 

 

Plaintiffs claim that the Vehicle has a manufacturing defect which has caused the transmission to repeatedly malfunction.  Plaintiffs allege that despite presenting the Vehicle to FCA’s dealerships multiple times for repairs, the problems have not been fixed.  After retaining counsel, Plaintiffs discovered that FCA had issued Technical Service Bulletins (TSB) Nos. 18-009 Rev.B and 21-009-21 which concerned symptoms similar to what Plaintiff experienced and both gave recommendations for “reflashing” the powertrain computer modules to try to solve the problem.  (See Cooper Decl., Ex.A, B).    

 

On 3/5/24, Plaintiffs filed this action against FCA, San Fernando Motor Company and Santander Consumer USA, Inc. for Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – Civil Code 1790, et seq.  On 9/13/24, Plaintiffs served FCA with Request for Production, Set 2, which included Requests 24-27 which focused on the TSBs mentioned above.  (Cooper Decl., Ex.C).  FCA responded with objections and produced no responsive documents.  (Id., Ex.D).  On 10/14/24, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter regarding the responses.  (Id., Ex.E).  On 10/21/24, FCA responded to the meet and confer letter indicating that it would produce documents pursuant to Case Management Orders issued in other Song-Beverly matters.  (Id., Ex.F).  FCA did not serve any further responses.  (Cooper Decl.).

 

On 11/22/24, Plaintiffs filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant FCA US LLC to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set 2.  FCA has opposed the motion and Plaintiffs have filed a reply to the opposition. 

 

ANALYSIS

 

In response to document requests, the responding party must respond with any of the following: (1) a statement that the party will comply with the particular request, in full or in part, (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the request, and/or (3) an objection to the request.  See CCP 2031.210(a); CCP 2031.220; CCP 2031.230; CCP 2031.240.

 

Upon receipt of a response to a request for documents, the propounding party may move to compel further responses, after attempting to meet and confer in good faith, if the propounding party deems that: (1) a statement of compliance is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete or evasive and/or (3) an objection is without merit or too general.  CCP 2031.310(a), (b).

 

Here, the subject requests seek the following documents:

 

REQUEST 24: With regard to Technical Service Bulletin 18-009-19, if YOU have received reports of customers besides PLAINTIFF experiencing symptoms in the past five years consistent with those described in the Technical Service Bulletin, please produce all DOCUMENTS indicating identifying information for such customers, including but not limited to name, addresses, phone numbers and emails.

 

REQUEST 25: With regard to Technical Service Bulletin 21-009-21, if YOU have received reports of customers besides PLAINTIFF experiencing symptoms in the past five years consistent with those described in the Technical Service Bulletin, please produce all DOCUMENTS indicating identifying information for such customers, including but not limited to name, addresses, phone numbers and emails.

 

REQUEST 26: With regard to Technical Service Bulletin 18-009-19, all research materials which led to its publication, including studies, data, charts, and memoranda.

 

REQUEST 27: With regard to Technical Service Bulletin 21-009-21, all research materials which led to its publication, including studies, data, charts, and memoranda.  

 

(See Cooper Decl., Ex.C)

 

FCA responded solely with objections to each of the foregoing requests.  (Cooper Decl., Ex.D).  Later, during meet and confer efforts, FCA indicated that it would produce certain documents pursuant to Case Management Orders issued in other cases.  (Id., Ex.F).  In opposition to the instant motion, FCA concedes that in its 10/21/24 meet and confer letter it “implicitly agreed” “to supplement its production” to include documents which “ostensibly relate to the document requests made by Plaintiffs in Nos. 24 and 25…,” but FCA admits that such production did not occur until 4/7/25 and 4/9/25.  (See Opposition, p.5:20-23, p.2:26-28).

 

The reply indicates that the 4/7/25 document production consisted of three redacted New Customer Assistance Inquiry Record, called a “CAIR” report.  Plaintiffs concede that the CAIR reports might have been responsive to Requests 24 or 25.  However, Plaintiff claims that because  FCA redacted all of the customer information found in the CAIR Report, the production is non-responsive.  Plaintiffs further contend that the remainder of FCA’s document production was not responsive to any of the requests at issue in this motion. 

 

Even if the documents produced by FCA on 4/7/25 and 4/9/25 are responsive to some or all of the document requests at issue in this motion, FCA has not served any further written responses to Requests 24-27.  As noted above, FCA responded solely with objections to the subject document requests.  In response to the instant motion, FCA has failed to justify its objections made in response to the subject requests as is its burden.  See Fairmont Insurance Co. (2000) 22 C4th 245, 255; Coy (1962) 58 C2d 210, 220-221; Williams (2017) 3 C5th 531, 541-542.  Minimally, FCA must provide further, written verified responses in compliance with CCP 2031.210-2031.240. 

 

To the extent that FCA has redacted customer information from documents produced in response to Requests 24 and 25, the Court finds that such redaction is appropriate considering third-party privacy rights.  Moreover, Plaintiffs admit that their objective in serving the subject document requests “was to gather evidence that FCA had been aware of this powertrain defect either prior to the sale to Plaintiff or during Plaintiff’s futile attempts to get repairs for the Vehicle” and “[e]ither would support Plaintiff’s prayer for civil penalties under Civil Code 1794.”  (See Motion, p.4:13-15).  Plaintiffs have failed to establish good cause for the personal information of other customers as the non-redacted information in the documents would seemingly fulfill Plaintiffs’ objection in serving the discovery.  Regardless, Plaintiffs are still entitled to further,  verified, written responses indicating whether FCA has fully or partially complied with the requests, which, if any, objections remain so that Plaintiffs can determine whether any responsive documents are being withheld on the basis of objections, etc.   

 

CONCLUSION

 

The motion is granted.  Defendant FCA US LLC is ordered to provide further, verified responses to Plaintiffs Gina M. Elias and Rosalinda Herrera’ Request for Production of Documents, Set 2, Nos. 24-27, within 15 days. 

 

The Court notes that in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4) Plaintiffs’ counsel has failed to electronically bookmark Exhibit F to the motion.  Counsel for the parties are reminded to ensure that all exhibits are properly electronically bookmarked and are warned that failure to comply with this rule in the future may result on matters being continued so that papers can be resubmitted in compliance with the rule, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

 

Additionally, the Court notes that the motion was improperly reserved as a “Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery)” when in fact it is a motion to compel further discovery responses.  Counsel for the parties are warned that reserving a motion under the wrong category/motion type could result in a motion being placed off calendar or continued.  

 

 

 

    




Website by Triangulus