Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV01242, Date: 2024-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV01242    Hearing Date: October 21, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 10/21/24

Case #24CHCV01242

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Request for Production of Documents, Set 1)

Motion filed on 7/30/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Brayn Steven Lopez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order striking Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.’s objections and compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set 1, Request Nos. 1-31. 

RULING: The motion is granted.  Further responses and production of documents are due within 30 days.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of Plaintiff Brayn Steven Lopez’s (Plaintiff) purchase of a 2023 Audi A3 (the Vehicle) on 7/16/23.  Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Defendant) warranted the Vehicle. 

Plaintiff alleges that the Vehicle was delivered to him with defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to, engine and electrical system defects.  Plaintiff contends that he presented the Vehicle to Defendant’s authorized repair facility(ies) for warranty repairs on multiple occasions.  Plaintiff claims that none of the repairs performed by Defendant’s authorized repair facility(ies) permanently repaired the defects. 

Plaintiff contends that the issuance of Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs) evidences the fact that Defendant had knowledge of the defects with the Vehicle.  Plaintiff contends that Defendant has not adequately compensated him for the Vehicle which was never fully repaired within a reasonable number of attempts. 

On 4/5/24, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty, and (3) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Civil Code 1793.2.  The complaint also includes a cause of action for Negligent Repair against Defendant Sherman Oaks-A, Inc. dba Audi Van Nuys.  On 5/9/24, Defendant answered the complaint. 

On 5/10/24, Plaintiff served Defendant with Request for Production of Documents, Set 1, by electronic mail.  (Sogoyan Decl., Ex.3).  On 6/11/24, Defendant served responses to the document requests by email which asserted objections.  (Sogoyan Decl., Ex.4).  Defendant failed to produce any documents at that time.  Id.  6/18/24, Plaintiff’s counsel began meet and confer efforts regarding what Plaintiff perceived to be deficiencies in the responses.  (See Sogoyan Decl., Ex.5-7).  On 7/10/24, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent the last meet and confer letter to which no response was received.  (Sogoyan Decl., Ex.8).  

On 7/30/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order striking Defendant’s   objections and compelling further responses and production of responsive documents to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set 1, Nos. 1-31.  Defendant has opposed the motion.  Plaintiff has not 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(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.  (See Sogoyan Decl., Ex.5-8).  Defendant fails to explain why it did not respond to Plaintiff’s 7/10/24 meet and confer letter and/or why it did not produce documents until 8/29/24 and 10/7/24 when Plaintiff had executed the protective order requested by Defendant on 7/9/24, especially considering the time constraint for filing a motion to compel further responses.  (See Smith Decl. ¶¶5-6, 8-10, Ex.C-D; Opposition, p.2:19-27).; CCP 2031.310(c).

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).

The subject requests seek documents relevant to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant under the Act including issues related to Defendant’s good faith compliance with the Act.  As such, Plaintiff has provided sufficient facts to establish the requisite good cause for production of the subject documents.  See CCP 2031.310(b)(1).

Requests 1-14 seek documents relating to Plaintiff’s own vehicle.  To prevail on a claim under the Act, Plaintiff must prove a nonconformity with the Vehicle that substantially impaired its use, value, or safety that Defendant and/or its authorized representatives, failed to repair after a reasonable number of attempts.  (Sogoyan Decl. ¶23, Ex.8). 

The documents sought in Requests 15-29 relate to Defendant’s written warranties and vehicle repurchase policies, procedures, and practices.  (Sogoyan Decl. ¶24, Ex.8).  Such documents, or lack thereof, may provide information as to whether Defendant has a policy which violates the Act.  See Oregel (2001) 90 CA4th 1094, 1104; Johnson (2005) 35 C4th 1191, 1200; Kwan (1994) 23 CA4th 174, 186. 

Requests 30 and 31 seek documents related to Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make and model of the Vehicle.  Information regarding vehicles other than Plaintiff’s vehicle is relevant to the subject matter of this action as it could assist Plaintiff in proving Defendant’s willful violation of the Act.  Documents responsive to such requests may reasonably lead to the discovery of information as to the nature and duration of the defects, Defendant’s knowledge of the defects, and Defendant’s inability to repair the defects.  While cases relied on by Plaintiff (i.e., Donlen (2013) 217 CA4th 138 and Doppes (2009) 174 CA4th 967) may not involve the exact circumstance before this Court, they are sufficient to show that the requested information could itself be admissible or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.  Similarly, evidence regarding Defendant’s practices in handling consumer complaints is relevant to determining whether Defendant willfully violated the Act when it refused to repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle.  Johnson, supra at 1198-1199; Oregel, supra at 1094; Kwan, supra at 186.

Defendant’s objections lack merit and/or have not been properly supported.  As set forth above, the documents sought are relevant and/or could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, the requests are not irrelevant or overbroad.  The requests are also not vague and/or ambiguous.  Defendant has also failed to establish that responding to any of the subject requests would be overly burdensome or oppressive.  To the extent that documents are being withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, Defendant is required to

provide a privilege log.  See CCP 2031.240(c).  Defendant has failed to establish that the documents sought contain confidential and/or propriety information and that dissemination of the information would result in injury.  See Nativi (2014) 223 CA4th 261, 318.  To the extent that any of the requests actually seek confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information, the Court finds that the protective order entered between the parties should adequately protect Defendant’s interests.  (See Smith Decl. ¶¶6, 9-10) 

While Defendant may have produced documents in response to certain of the requests at issue since the filing of this motion, Defendant has not served further written responses.  As such, it is not clear whether any documents are being withheld on the bases of the unmeritorious objections included in the written responses.  Additionally, Defendant has admittedly failed to produce documents in response to Requests 30 and 31.   

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.  Defendant is ordered to produce further written responses and to produce documents in accordance therewith within the next 30 days.

Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits attached to the declaration submitted in support of the motion as required by CRC 3.1110(f)(4).  Counsel for 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 with the rule, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.