Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00299, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CMCV00299 Hearing Date: August 3, 2023 Dept: A
22CMCV00299 Ramon Jimenez, et al. v. American Honda Motor
Company, Inc.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS,
SET NO. ONE
I.
BACKGROUND
The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs bought a 2019 Honda HR-V
made by Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Honda”) on August 31, 2019.
The vehicle developed defects in various systems. Defendant allegedly failed to comply with its
obligations under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the “SBA”).
II.
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiffs request an order
to compel Defendant’s further response to Request for Production of Documents,
Set One. Defendant served a response containing boilerplate objections, none of
which have merit. The parties participated in an informal discovery conference (IDC)
with the court on May 26, 2023, but the issues were not resolved.
Defendant argues that it allowed production in whole or stated its
inability to comply because the recommended documents do not exist. In the
interest of cooperation, Defendant will serve further responses to requests 19
and 20.
In reply, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s supplemental responses
are not code compliant. Defendant produced a small fraction of documents
requested, and Defendant failed to provide any internal investigation or
root-analysis documents.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A motion to compel
further responses to Request for Production of Documents is proper where
Plaintiff believes the statement of compliance is incomplete, a representation
of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive and/or an
objection in the response is without merit or too general. Code Civ. Proc., §2031.310. The parties have
met and conferred informally and with the court without resolution.
The scope of discovery
is liberally construed in favor of disclosure “as a matter of right unless
statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it.” (Greyhound
Corp. v. Superior Court of Merced County (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355, 377-378.)
The broad scope of permissible discovery includes “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.)
IV. DISCUSSION
To prevail on a claim for violation of
the SBA, Plaintiffs have the burden to prove that “(1) the vehicle had a
nonconformity covered by the express warranty that substantially impaired the
use, value or safety of the vehicle (the nonconformity element); (2) the
vehicle was presented to an authorized representative of the manufacturer of
the vehicle for repair (the presentation element); and (3) the manufacturer or
his representative did not repair the nonconformity after a reasonable number
of repair attempts (the failure to repair element).” (Oregel v. American
Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.) The SBA requires that
"the manufacturer [] maintain or [] designate and authorize service and
repair facilities in the state (Civ. Code, § 1793.2, subd. (a)(1)(A)); i.e.,
usually, automobile dealerships with service departments thereby making a
manufacturer capable of becoming aware of every failed repair attempt.” (Krotin
v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 294, 303.)
Therefore, Defendant’s prior knowledge of the alleged defects in the subject
vehicle and its attempts to comply with its statutory obligations to repair
and/or replace are relevant.
In response to the discovery, Defendant
is obligated to make affirmative representations of whether the specific
documents requested exist and that a diligent search and inquiry was made, and
what if any documents were withheld as specifically identified in a privilege
log, 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, 2031.240.)
Procedural Issues
All of Plaintiff’s objections to the
Declaration of Kellen Nelson (defense counsel) recounting the parties’
interaction with respect to discovery and efforts to meet and confer are
OVERRULED.
While Defendant contends that the motion
is rendered moot because of Defendant’s supplemental production and response,
Defendant maintains previously asserted objections to certain categories on
grounds they are not relevant or discoverable. Therefore, the motion is not
moot. Defendant’s responses are not code compliant as further discussed below.
Request Nos. 16, 19, 20, and 21:
Internal investigation and analysis of the HVAC system.
These categories are relevant to
establish Defendant’s knowledge of the defects, and whether it failed to comply
with the Act. This is also relevant to the recovery of civil penalties if the
buyer can show that “the manufacturer's failure to comply was willful. The
penalty is important ‘as a deterrent to deliberate violations. Without such a
provision, a seller or manufacturer who knew the consumer was entitled to a
refund or replacement might nevertheless be tempted to refuse compliance in the
hope the consumer would not persist, secure in the knowledge its liability was
limited to refund or replacement.’” (Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc.
(1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 136.)
To establish this violation, the jury can
consider whether “(1) the manufacturer knew the vehicle had not been repaired
within a reasonable period or after a reasonable number of attempts, and (2)
whether the manufacturer had a written policy on the requirement to repair or
replace. (Id. at pp. 185-186.)” Jensen at 136. Accordingly, the
investigative documents are relevant and discoverable on the issue of
knowledge.
Defendant objects on grounds that the documents at issue will
reveal a trade secret or proprietary information or is protected by the
attorney-client privilege. Defendant is
required to provide a privilege log all the documents at issue so that the
court can determine whether or not any privilege applies. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.240(b).) The privilege log must contain clear descriptions of the
documents as set forth in the statute.
Defendant has not established that compliance with the requests
will be unreasonably burdensome and oppressive. Defendant’s remedy is to move for a
protective order, not to avoid responding to discovery. To support an objection
of oppression, there must be some showing by the opposing party either of an
intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the
burden is incommensurate with the result sought. (West Pico Furniture Co. v.
Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) Oppression must not be equated
with burden; “[t]he objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence
showing the quantum of work required, … . (Id.)
The Plaintiffs’ description of the “HVAC SYSTEM DEFECT” is not
vague and ambiguous. Plaintiff identifies the way the defect manifests:
inability to produce cold air, recharging of the HVAC system, a leak in the
discharge hose, and premature placement of specific components among other
things. (Plaintiffs’ Ex. 3, 13-20.)
Defendant objects to the extent Plaintiffs ask Defendant to
respond on behalf of any other entity. (Plaintiffs’ Sep. Stmt. 3:8-10.)
Defendant responds it has made a diligent search and inquiry and claims it does
not have any documents. The response infers that Defendant limited its
production to documents in its possession only. However, the statute requires
production of documents that are in the possession, custody, or control of that
party. Defendant is also required to provide contact information of any organization
believed to have possession, custody, or control. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.230.) Defendant’s response is improperly
limiting.
Defendant improperly limits production of documents relevant to
Plaintiffs’ vehicle only. However, “other vehicle evidence” is relevant to
proving Defendant’s knowledge of the defects in the same make and model as
Plaintiffs’ vehicle. The SBA requires the maker to designate service and repair
facilities throughout the state which enable the manufacturer to become aware
of every failed repair attempt. (Krotin
v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 294, 303; Donlen
v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154 [Testimony about a
defective transmission installed in plaintiff’s truck and other trucks and what
the manufacturer did to notify dealers and technicians about problems with this
transmission model was “certainly probative and not unduly prejudicial."].)
Requests 31
and 41: Warranty and vehicle repurchase
policies, procedures, and practices.
The requested documents are relevant to determine whether
Defendant adheres to its obligations under the SBA relating to repair and
repurchasing defective vehicles. The documents are relevant to determine
whether Defendant acted willfully or in good faith. (Kwan v.
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 185-186
["We agree a manufacturer who refused a refund or replacement on the
ground a reasonable number of repair attempts had not been made, without making
any effort to gather the available information on repair history, might well be
deemed to have acted willfully.”].)
Plaintiffs are entitled to discover whether Defendant’s policies “erect
hidden obstacles to the ability of an unwary consumer to obtain redress under
the Act" which is probative of the manufacturer’s willfulness in failing
to comply with its obligations under the Act. (Oregel v. American Isuzu
Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1105.)
Defendant asserts the same objections described above, none of
which have merit. Defendant again limits its production to documents in its
possession which is improper as previously discussed. The response also limits
production to Plaintiff’s vehicle, although “other vehicle” evidence is
relevant.
V. CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Response and Production
is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant responses
and production of documents without objection within 10 days.