Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00735, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CMCV00735 Hearing Date: November 14, 2023 Dept: A
Tuesday,
November 14, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
The
complaint alleges that Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Defendant”) issued
a written warranty to Plaintiffs with their purchase of a 2019 Honda Odyssey. The
vehicle developed defects that Defendant failed to repair or repurchase in violation
of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiffs request an order to compel Defendant
to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ first set of Request for Production
of Documents No. 46 (“Request No. 46”), and for imposition of sanctions. Plaintiffs’
counsel sent a meet and confer letter, and the parties spoke by telephone
without resolving the issues.
Defendant argues that the parties
participated in an informal discovery conference with the Court on September
15, 2023. Defendant served further responses to the document request including
No. 46, and therefore, this motion is moot. Defendant anticipates producing
documents prior to the hearing. Sanctions are not warranted.
In reply, Plaintiffs acknowledge that
Defendant served a further response to Request No. 46 along with Defendant’s
opposition on October 30, 2023, which is not Code-compliant. Defendant did not
produce documents. The Court should impose sanctions.
III.
DISCUSSION
A
motion to compel further responses to a document request is proper where
Plaintiffs believe Defendant’s statement of compliance is incomplete, or 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.)
Request
No. 46 demands documents relating to Defendant’s repair of components made
under warranty of the vehicle at issue. While Defendant contends it served a
further response to No. 46, Plaintiffs maintain that the responses are not
Code-compliant. Defendant did not provide the Court with a copy of the further
response. Defendant refers to an Exhibit E, which consists of Plaintiffs’ meet
and confer emails. Defendant has not established that any of its objections based
on privacy, confidentiality, or trade secret are meritorious. Without the further
response, the Court cannot determine whether Defendant agreed to provide a
privilege log pursuant to Civil
Procedure, section 2031.240 or whether Defendant continues to
unilaterally refuse to produce relevant documents subject to these objections.
Accordingly,
Plaintiffs’ motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to serve further, verified,
supplemental responses and production of documents to Request No. 46 without
objection in a form that complies with statute within 10 days. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, et seq.) The Court finds that a
total of four hours to prepare the motion, reply, and appear at the hearing at
$415 per hour is reasonable. The Court imposes monetary sanctions of $1,720
($415 per hour x 4, and filing fees of $60) against Defendant, American Honda
Motor Co., Inc. and its counsel of record, Bowman and Brooke, LLP, payable
within 10 days to Plaintiffs for Defendant’s failure to show substantial
justification for its conduct.