Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV00016, Date: 2025-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00016    Hearing Date: May 6, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff Jose L Armas (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) alleging two causes of action under the Song-Beverly Act for (1) breach of express warranty and (2) breach of implied warranty related to a 2021 Ram 1500 vehicle purchased by Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff now moves to compel Defendant’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 22, 28, 29, and 32.  Defendant opposes the motion and Plaintiff replies.

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

            Timeliness of Motion & Meet and Confer

            A notice of motion to compel further responses must be given within 45 days of the service of the verified responses, or any supplemental verified responses, or on or before any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c).) Failure to file such a motion within this time period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel further responses to interrogatories or requests for production of documents. (Ibid.)

            Here, Plaintiff electronically served Defendant with its First Set of Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”) on February 21, 2024.  (Patterson Decl. ¶ 2 and Ex. A.)  As such, Defendant’s responses were due by March 27, 2024.  Defendant untimely served unverified responses on March 28, 2024.  (Patterson Decl. ¶ 3 and Ex. B.)  Defendant provided verifications on September 18, 2024.  (Id. at ¶ 8 and Ex. H.) 

On November 19, 2024, the parties agreed to extend Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses deadline to thirty days after Plaintiff receives supplemental responses to RPD nos. 1, 2, 20, 21, 22, 24, and 26.  (Exhibit L to Patterson Decl.)  The parties confirmed this agreement on March 3, 2025.  (Ex. P to Patterson Decl.)

Plaintiff has also provided numerous emails demonstrating that the parties met and conferred at length and attended an Informal Discovery Conference before filing the instant motion.

            Separate Statement

            California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires that any motion involving the content of discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for why an order compelling further responses is warranted.

            Plaintiff has provided separate statement in compliance with the Rules of Court.

ANALYSIS   

1.     Motion to Compel

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) 

            “The purpose of the discovery rules is to enhance the truth-seeking function of the litigation process and eliminate trial strategies that focus on gamesmanship and surprise.  In other words, the discovery process is designed to make a trial less a game of blindman's bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.”  (Juarez v. Boy Scouts of Am., Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377, 389 [cleaned up].)  

            Where a party objects, or responds inadequately, to discovery requests, a motion lies to compel further responses, and that party has the burden to justify the objections or inadequate responses. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a) [motion to compel further responses lies “[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories”], 2031.310, subd. (a) [motion to compel further responses lies “[o]n receipt of a response to a demand for inspection”], 2033.290, subd. (a) [motion to compel further responses lies “[o]n receipt of a response to requests for admissions”].)  Further, “a trial court's determination of a motion to compel discovery is reviewed for abuse of discretion.  However, when the facts asserted in support of and in opposition to the motion are in conflict, the trial court's factual findings will be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence.” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733 [cleaned up].)

            With respect to Requests for Production of documents or other items, the Discovery Act provides as follows:

The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:  (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities.  (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item.  (3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).)  “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

a.      RPD No. 22

Plaintiff seeks “all warranty extensions or modifications applicable to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”  Defendant originally agreed only to produce Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs) and Customer Satisfaction Notifications.  Defendant subsequently supplemented these responses to indicate it is compliance in full with Plaintiff’s request because Warranty Bulletin D-23-11 was released as TSB 23-074-23, which Defendant has produced. 

Plaintiff argues this is insufficient and Defendant must produce the Warranty Bulletin itself.  Defendant correctly notes that RPD No. 22 was not discussed at the IDC, and therefore Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is inappropriate.

Moreover, Plaintiff appears to be caught up in semantics.  Defendant has supplemented its responses to indicate the only responsive Bulletin is D-23-11, which was released as TSB 23-074-23, which Defendant has produced.  Thus, there does not appear, based on the face of the supplemental responses, anything further for Defendant to produce.

As such, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response and/or production to RPD No. 22 is denied.

b.     RPD No. 28

Plaintiff seeks “a list of customer complaints in YOUR electronically stored information database for water on the headliner, water at the back of the cab and/or a leak from the third brake/cargo light/Center High Mounted Stop Lamp, as described in YOUR Warranty Bulletin No. D-23-11, Dated June 21, 2023, in 2019-2021 Ram 1500 vehicles purchased in California.  This list shall include the VIN, date of repair visit, dealership or other reporting location, and text of the other customers’ reported complaint, but shall not include the other customers’ names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, or other personal identifying information.”

Defendant has agreed to produce customer complaints (“CAIRS”) from California owners of 2021 Ram 1500 vehicles, which is the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle, although Plaintiff indicates Defendant has not produced any documents responsive to this request.  Plaintiff argues that CAIRS for 2019 and 2020 models are also highly relevant because Warranty Bulletin No. D-23-11 covered 2019-2021 Ram 1500 vehicles.

Although the notes that Warranty Bulletin No. D-23-11 covers 2019-2021 Ram 1500 vehicles, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s request is not narrowly tailored to the same made, model and year.  As such, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further response regarding CAIRS for 2019 and 2020 models.

Notwithstanding, because Defendant has not yet produced any documents in response, including for 2021 models, to which it has already agreed, the Court compels the production of CAIRS for 2021 models only.

c.      RPD No. 29

Plaintiff seeks “all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any internal analysis or investigation by YOU CONCERNING water on the headliner, water at the back of the cab and/or a leak from the third brake/cargo light/Center High Mounted Stop Lamp, as described in YOUR Warranty Bulletin No. D-23-11, Dated June 21, 2023 in 2019-2021 Ram 1500 vehicles.

Defendant objected to this request on the grounds of overbreadth, relevance, and that it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the term “YOUR.” 

In opposition, Defendant indicates it will comply in full with this request and produce all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control.  The Court interprets this as a concession that Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to RPD No. 29 is meritorious.  To the extent Plaintiff also seeks to compel a further production to RPD No. 29, such request is premature, as Defendant has not yet supplemented its response.

d.     RPD No. 32

Plaintiff seeks “all DOCUMENTS which support any of YOUR Affirmative Defenses to the operative complaint.” 

Defendant objected to this request on overbreadth and relevance grounds, because it lacks specificity as to the category of documents sought to be produced, and to the extent it seeks attorney-client privileged documents or documents constituting attorney work product.

In opposition, Defendant indicates it has already produced all documents responsive to this request.  As such, the Court interprets this as a concession that Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to RPD No. 32 that indicates as much is warranted.  To the extent Plaintiff seeks to compel a further production to RPD No. 32, such request is premature, as Defendant has not yet formally supplemented its response.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses and production.  Finding Defendant has already provided a code-compliant response to RPD No. 22 and produced all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request to compel further responses to RPD No. 22.

Consistent with Defendant’s position in opposition, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses and/or production regarding RPD Nos. 28, 29, and 32 as set forth above.  Defendant shall provide further responses and/or production within twenty (20) days of notice of the Court’s order.  Other than the CAIRS for 2021, to the extent Plaintiff requests to compel a further production, such requests of Plaintiff are denied as premature.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith. 

DATED:  May 6, 2025                                                           ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court