Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV01595, Date: 2025-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01595    Hearing Date: March 20, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

This case arises from alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Act. 

On April 4, 2024, Plaintiffs Ramon Salcedo and Margarita Salcedo (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Honda”) alleging five causes of action for violations of various provisions of the Song-Beverly Act.

Plaintiffs now move to compel further responses and productions from Defendant in response to their Requests for Production of Documents, set one (“RPD”).  Defendant opposes the motion and Plaintiffs reply.

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); 2031.310, 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, Plaintiffs electronically served Defendant with the RFP on May 31, 2024.  (Manno Decl. ¶ 14 and Ex. 7.)  Defendant initially responded on August 1, 2024, and provided further responses to RPD Nos. 19 and 20 on September 20, 2024, with the verification provided on September 25, 2024.  (Manno Decl. ¶¶ 15-16 and Exs. 8-9.)

            The parties subsequently agreed in writing to extend the motion filing deadline commensurate with the Informal Discovery Conference, which was held on December 19, 2024.  (Manno Decl. ¶¶ 27-28 and Exs. 17-18.)  On December 19, 2024, the parties agreed in writing to extend the motion filing deadline to February 17, 2025.  (Manno Decl. ¶ 29 and Ex. 19.)

            Plaintiffs timely filed the instant motion on February 18, 2025.

            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.

            Plaintiffs have filed a separate statement in compliance with the Rules of Court.

ANALYSIS   

1.     Motion to Compel

“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., § 2031.310, subd. (a) [motion to compel further responses lies “[o]n receipt of a response to a demand for inspection”].)  “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].)

            At issue are the following RPD:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mail, concerning, or relating to any internal analysis or investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding the ENGINE DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This request shall be interpreted to include, but not be limited to, any such investigation to determine the root cause of such ENGINE DEFECT, any such investigation to design a permanent repair procedure for such ENGINE DEFECT, any such investigation into the failure rates of parts associated with such ENGINE DEFECT, any cost analysis for implementing a proposed repair procedures, any savings analysis not implementing a proposed repair procedures, etc.]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mail, concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to the ENGINE DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including but not limited to any databases in YOUR possession with information from dealers, service departments, parts departments, or warranty departments, and all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim or reported failure.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mail, concerning failure rates of vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE as a result of the ENGINE DEFECT.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mail, concerning, or relating to any fixes for the ENGINE DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

The RPD defines the term “ENGINE DEFECT” as follows:

5. The term “ENGINE DEFECT” shall be understood to mean such defects which result in symptoms including but not limited to the start/stop feature being inoperable, idle stop being inoperable, required replacement of the starter, required replacement of the starter relays, required adjustment of the valves, required replacement of the battery condition monitor sensor, required performance of technical service bulletin (“TSB”) 23-009; and any other concern identified in the repair history for the subject 2020 Honda Ridgeline; Vehicle Identification Number 5FPYK3F88LB015113.

            Defendant objects to the requests as vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, and has responded as follows:

In response to RPD 16, Defendant has responded that “Subject to and without waiving these objections, as related to Plaintiffs’ definition of the term "ENGINE DEFECT," the requested production will be allowed in part and AHM will produce Service Bulletin Nos. 23-008 and 23-009, which represent the culmination of investigation and analysis of the cause and corrective action for what Plaintiffs have defined as “ENGINE DEFECT.” Apart from the analysis and/or investigation represented by the identified service bulletins, there is no other internal analysis or investigation for what Plaintiffs have defined as "ENGINE DEFECT" in 2020 Honda Ridgeline vehicles.”

In response to RPD 19 and 20, Defendant has responded, “The production will be allowed in whole and AHM will search for and produce all Customer Retention and Resolution System Reports and Tech Line Contact Reports (redacted to protect the privacy of third parties), which identify customer complaints, claims, and reported failures by owners of 2020 Honda Ridgeline vehicles in California regarding what Plaintiff defines as ENGINE DEFECT, utilizing search terms including, “auto start/stop unavailable warning on,” “idle stop inop,” “start/stop feature is nonop,” “start/stop is nonop,” “start/stop feature is inop,” “start/stop is inop,” “replacement of starter,” “replace starter,” “replacement of starter relays,” “replace starter relay,” “valve adjustment,” “adjustment of the valves,” “replacement of battery condition monitor sensor,” “replace battery condition monitor sensor.” In addition, AHM will identify, in spreadsheet format, warranty claims for components of 2020 Honda Ridgeline vehicles regarding what Plaintiff defines as ENGINE DEFECT, and limited to the same components that were the subject of warranty repair in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including Part Nos. 60100-TG7-A90ZZ (Service Bulletin No. 21-086), 76204-TG7-A11 (Service Bulletin No. 23-035), 37805-RLV-B43 (Service Bulletin No. 23- 008), 31200-5J2-A53 (Service Bulletin No. 23-009), and 38920-TJB-A02. The documents identified in this response contain information that is private, confidential, commercially sensitive, proprietary, and/or trade secret, and will be produced pursuant to the protective order in this case.”

In response to RPD 21, Defendant has responded, “Subject to and without waiving these objections, as related to Plaintiffs’ definition of the term "ENGINE DEFECT," the requested production will be allowed in whole and all documents in the requested category that are in the possession, custody, or control of AHM, and to which no objection is being made, will be included in the production, including Service Bulletin Nos. 23-008 and 23-009. There are no other fixes for what Plaintiffs have defined as "ENGINE DEFECT" in 2020 Honda Ridgeline vehicles.”

Plaintiff objects to these responses as follows: (1) the responses are not code compliant; (2) the vague/ambiguous objections are boilerplate; and (3) Defendant must produce internal information relating to the known defects.

a.     Code-Complaint Responses

Defendant’s responses must include (1) an agreement to comply either “in whole or in part” and that all documents or things in their possession, custody or control as to which no objection is made will be included; (2) a representation of an inability to comply; or (3) objections and specifications of withheld documents.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230.)

Defendant responds to RPD 16 that it will comply “in part” but also states that other than the documents specified to be produced, “there is no other internal analysis or investigation for what Plaintiffs have defined as "ENGINE DEFECT" in 2020 Honda Ridgeline vehicles.”  Thus, Defendant has indicated it will comply only in part, but the remainder of the response suggests Defendant is complying in whole. As such, the Court does not find the response to RPD 16 code compliant.

For RPD 19 and 20, Defendant responds that it will comply in whole and specifies the documents and searches it intends to run.  Plaintiffs argue that the documents Defendant lists are improperly limited to 2020 Honda Ridgeline vehicles in California.  The Court agrees that the representation that Defendant will respond “in whole” but then actually limit its production to only 2020 Honda Ridgeline vehicles in California does not comply with the Code.

For RPD 21, Defendant responds that it will respond in whole, but then caveats that it will withhold documents for which an objection is made.  As such, the Court does not find the response to RPD 21 to be code compliant.

b.     Vague/Ambiguous Objections

Defendant objects to the definition of “ENGINE DEFECT” as vague and ambiguous.  The Court disagrees.  Although Defendant may disagree with how Plaintiff defined “ENGINE DEFECT,” Plaintiff’s definition is limited to defects that resulted in a specific list of symptoms.  In other words, it encompasses any defect that resulted in any of the specifically listed symptoms, or in the symptoms documented in the subject vehicle’s history.

Defendant also objects to the word “fixes” as vague and ambiguous.  The Court does not see how that term is vague or ambiguous, and Defendant has not elaborated as to its confusion.

c.      Overbreadth - Internal Documents/Investigations/Other Vehicles

Defendant argues that it is not required to produce internal documents, investigations into the cause of the defect, or documents relating to other vehicles, because all that is required to establish willfulness under Song-Beverly is that Defendant was aware of the defect in the subject vehicle and refused to repair in a reasonable number of attempts or replace, which can be gleaned from the safety bulletins and the subject vehicle’s repair history.

While the Court believes defects in other 2020 Honda Ridgeline vehicles is highly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, the Court agrees with Defendant that the burden and overbreadth of documents pertaining to other types of vehicles outweighs their probative value.

With respect to internal investigations, while Plaintiff may not need to present evidence about the cause of a defect, these documents may be relevant to determining when Defendant knew about the defect, and what Defendant knew about the defect, which can in turn demonstrate whether Defendant’s repair attempts were reasonable.  As such, the Court finds them probative and responsive, and should generally either be produced or be placed on a privilege log.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses and production is granted in part.  The Court compels Defendant to provide further, code-compliant responses, that consistently specify whether the production will be made in whole or in part, as outlined above. 

Further, the Court compels Defendant to either produce or list on a privilege log responsive internal documents and investigations pertaining to the “ENGINE DEFECT” as Plaintiff has defined that term in other 2020 Honda Ridgeline vehicles, but not other types of vehicles.

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

DATED:  March 20, 2025                                                      ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court