Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV02323, Date: 2025-05-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24CHCV02323 Hearing Date: May 14, 2025 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 5/14/25
TRIAL DATE: 8/31/26
Case #24CHCV02323
MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Requests for
Production of Documents, Set 1)
Motion filed on 1/17/25.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Tigran Elchyan
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
Inc.
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion is granted as set forth below.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of Plaintiffs Tigran Elchyan and
Kalinka Russian Cuisine, Inc.’s lease of a 2020 Toyota Tundra (the Vehicle) on
or about 3/7/20. The Vehicle was
manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
(Defendant). Plaintiffs allege that
during the warranty period, they presented the Vehicle to Defendant’s
authorized repair facilities on numerous occasions for engine, transmission,
and electrical system defects; however, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant and
its authorized repair facilities were unable to repair the Vehicle and did not repurchase/replace
the Vehicle. (Amarkarian Decl. ¶¶5-8, 11,
Ex.1). Plaintiffs contend that Defendant
was aware of the defects through its internal investigation and analysis of
customer complaints, warranty data, field service repairs and/or product
evaluation. (Amarkarian Decl. ¶¶9-10).
On 6/26/24, Plaintiffs 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 Section 1793.2. On
7/25/24, Defendant answered the complaint.
On 7/31/24, Plaintiffs served Defendant with Requests for Production of
Documents, Set 1. (Amarkarian Decl. ¶14,
Ex.2). On 11/4/24, Defendant served
verified responses which included objections.
(Id. ¶15, Ex.3). Defendant
refused to produce documents in response to Requests 9-10, 21 and 34-36. Id.
Despite meet and confer efforts, the parties were unable
to informally resolve the discovery dispute.
(Amarkarian Decl. ¶¶16-18, Ex.4-5).
Therefore, pursuant to the agreed upon extension of time to file a
motion regarding the subject discovery responses, on 1/17/25, Plaintiff Tigran
Elchyan filed and served the instant motion seeking an order striking Defendant’s
objections and compelling further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for
Production of Documents, Set 1, Nos. 9-10, 21 and 34-36. Defendant 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 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.
The documents sought are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims
against Defendant under the Song-Beverly 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 9 and 10 seek documents regarding Defendant’s
reimbursements to authorized dealerships for warranty repairs to the Vehicle. Defendant has produced only the Warranty
Claim History which, according to Plaintiff, does not provide information as to
when Defendant reimbursed their authorized dealerships related to warranty
claims regarding the Vehicle. The dates
of the reimbursement approval may assist Plaintiffs in establishing the exact
date(s) Defendant was aware of the defects in the Vehicle. Such information is relevant to issue of whether
Defendant met its duty to repurchase the defective Vehicle under the
Song-Beverly Act and/or Defendant’s exposure to civil penalties. See Kwan (1994) 23 CA4th 174,
186.
Request 21 seeks documents regarding Defendant’s Warranty
Claims policies, procedures, and guidelines manual(s) from the date the Vehicle
was purchased to the present. Such documents,
or lack thereof, may provide information as to whether Defendant has a policy
which violates the Song-Beverly Act. See
Oregel (1995) 90 CA4th 1094, 1104; Johnson (2005) 35 C4th 1191,
1200; Kwan, supra. Defendant
responded to this request by stating that it believed Plaintiffs were in
possession of certain responsive documents, indicated documents could be found
online and referred to sales records. In
the opposition, Defendant indicates that it has agreed to produce the relevant
portions of its warranty manual and claims handling flowchart subject to a
stipulated protective order in the LASC model.
(See Opposition, p.2:17-18).
However, such response is not included in a verified supplemental
response. Nor has Defendant indicated
that it has made any effort to have such a protective order put in place. Minimally, Defendant must provide a further
response specifying what documents it will produce in response to this
request.
Request 34 seeks documents regarding the number of
repurchases and replacements Defendant made in California in response to
customers’ personal requests related to vehicles of the same year, make and
model as the Vehicle. Requests 35 and 36
seek documents regarding other vehicles with substantially similar complaints
as to those in Plaintiffs’ Vehicle.
Defendant responded solely with objections.
Information regarding vehicles other than Plaintiffs’
vehicle is relevant to the subject matter of this action as it could assist
Plaintiffs in proving Defendant’s willful violation of the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty 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 Song-Beverly Act when it initially did not repurchase
Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Johnson, supra
at 1198-1199; Oregel, supra at 1094; Kwan, supra at
186.
Additionally, in response to the subject requests,
Defendant includes boilerplate objections which it has failed to adequately justify. See Fairmont Insurance Co.
(2000) 22 C4th 245, 255; Coy (1962) 58 C2d 210, 220-221; Williams
(2017) 3 C5th 531, 541-542. As set forth
above, the documents sought are relevant and/or could lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Defendant has
failed to establish that the requests are overbroad, vague and/or
ambiguous. Defendant has also failed to
establish that responding to any of the subject requests would be overly
burdensome. To the extent that documents
are being withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege, work product or
some other privilege, Defendant is required to provide a privilege log. See CCP 2031.240(c).
CONCLUSION
The motion is granted.
Defendant is ordered to provide further, verified responses to Requests
9, 10, 21 and 34-36 and produce corresponding documents within 30 days. To the extent Defendant is withholding any
responsive documents to the subject requests based on privilege, Defendant must
produce a privilege log. Defendant’s
remaining objections to Requests 9, 10, 21 and 34 are stricken.
The Court notes that in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4)
both Plaintiff and Defendant have failed to properly electronically bookmark
the exhibits attached to the declarations filed in support of the motion and
opposition. 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.