Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV00715, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV00715 Hearing Date: May 2, 2024 Dept: A
Thursday, May
2, 2024; 8:30 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
The
complaint alleges that Defendant issued a written express warranty in
connection with Plaintiffs’ purchase of a 2022 Kia Sorento. The vehicle
developed electrical and other defects. Defendant failed to comply with its
statutory obligations to replace the vehicle or pay restitution after failing
to repair the defects, all in violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act (“SBA”).
II.
ARGUMENTS
On December
4, 2023, Plaintiffs served Defendant with a document request. Defendant served
unverified, incomplete, and deficient responses with meritless objections on
January 26, 2024. Plaintiffs requested documents relevant to Defendant’s
internal investigation of the defect to demonstrate Defendant’s “accretion of
knowledge” which is relevant to Plaintiffs’ case in chief and their request for
civil penalties. (Mot. 7:2.) Plaintiffs' counsel sent numerous letters and
emails to Defendant beginning on November 27, 2023, and continuing through
March 12, 2024, in order to meet and confer. Plaintiffs signed a protective
order to alleviate Defendant’s confidentiality concerns. Defendant stands on its objections without
meeting and conferring. The Court should impose sanctions.
In
opposition, Defendant contends the requests exceed the scope of relevant
discovery, Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer, and brought a premature and
unnecessary motion. The Court should impose sanctions against Plaintiff.
Defendant subsequently served a verification to its responses.
In
reply, Plaintiffs contend that the opposition is without merit in light of the
Court’s Case Management Conference Addendum relevant to cases brought under the
SBA, with which Defendant did not comply. Defendant refused to participate in
an informal discovery conference with the Court. Defendant is not entitled to
imposition of sanctions against Plaintiffs.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A
motion to compel further responses to a document request is proper where the
moving party believes the statement of compliance is incomplete, or a
representation of inability to comply is inadequate, evasive and/or an
objection is without merit or too general. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.310 (a).) The motion must show good cause to justify the
discovery and must be supported by a meet and confer declaration. (Id.
at subd. (b).
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
The
Court served its case management conference addendum articulating the documents
that are discoverable in SBA cases. (M.O. 2/7/24.) The order identifies
discoverable documents including a compilation of customer complaints and
internal investigation documents such as technical service bulletins and recall
notices, disclosures to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
regarding early warning reports and complaints, all of which are relevant to
demonstrate Defendant’s knowledge of the defect.
Additionally,
this Court has previously granted motions to compel further responses to
document requests in
Despite
the foregoing, Defendant stood on its objections without meeting and conferring
in good faith. (Stoliker decl., ¶¶ 25, 29, Ex. 7, 8, 10, 11.) Failure to meet
and confer in good faith is an abuse of the discovery process. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2023.010 (i).)
A
meaningful, reasonable, sincere, and good faith attempt to meet and confer
requires that the parties present their respective positions with “candor,
specificity, and support” during informal negotiations. (Townsend
v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.) The
Discovery Act is meant to be “self-executing.” (Townsend
v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.)
The
document request propounded by Plaintiffs relate to discoverable information
namely (1) documents relating to
Defendant’s knowledge of the issues plaguing the subject vehicle; and (2)
documents relating to the same issues of in vehicles of the same, year, make,
and model.
Defendant
responds to Plaintiffs’ request by reference to various documents which
Defendant believes to be in Plaintiffs’ possession. (Sniderman decl., Ex. A,
response to request No. 3 and 5, for example.) Defendant is obligated to
produce documents in its possession or control, not speculate whether
Plaintiffs have possession of such documents. Defendant’s response avoids its
discovery obligations. Defendant also agreed to produce “subject to objections”
without providing a privilege log of those documents being withheld and the
reasons therefore. (Id.)
Defendant’s
belief that the material is protected from disclosure does not justify refusing
to identify and produce documents. Where documents are withheld pursuant to privacy,
confidentiality, trade secret, attorney-client privilege, work product, or any
other privilege, Defendant is required to provide a privilege log specifically
describing all documents withheld and the specific objection asserted to enable
the Court to determine whether any privilege applies. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.240 subp. (b).) The privilege log must contain clear descriptions of the
documents as set forth in the statute. (Id.) Regardless, Defendant fails
to provide any evidence that such documents fall within any privilege. Defendant
must seek a protective order; not unilaterally withhold unidentified documents
at its discretion. Plaintiffs signed a protective order to ameliorate
Defendant’s confidentiality concerns.
The
discovery sought is relevant to issues raised in cases for violation of the SBA.
To prevail, Plaintiffs have the burden of proving 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
extent of Defendant’s knowledge of the defect and attempts to repair are relevant
to Plaintiff’s case in chief including whether Defendant attempted to comply
with their obligations under the SBA. (Oregel
v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.) The
requested documents are 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.) Therefore,
Plaintiffs
are entitled to discover information of the same defects in vehicles of the
same year, make, and model other than Plaintiffs’ vehicle as it is relevant to knowledge
and civil penalties. (Donlen
v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154; Jensen
v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 136.
Defendant’s responses unilaterally limit production of documents to the
“subject vehicle.” (Sniderman decl., Ex. A, response to Request No. 84, for
example.)
Defendant
has not established that compliance with the document request will be
unreasonably burdensome and oppressive. Defendant’s remedy is to
move for a protective order, not refuse to respond or unilaterally impose
limitations on Plaintiffs’ discovery. Defendant did not meet its burden of
proof on that issue. (West
Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.)
Plaintiffs
are entitled to an award of sanctions. Defendant failed to provide substantial
justification for its responses. The Court finds that $350 is a reasonable
hourly fee for this discovery motion (reduced from $395.) Plaintiffs’ counsel
spent or will have spent eight hours to prepare the motion, appear and reply,
which is reasonable, given the amount of discovery at issue.
V.
CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to
provide within 10 days a verified, further response to Request for Production
of Documents, Set One without objection to Requests Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 18, 20,
22, 24, 30, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 48, 54, 55, 56, 65, 73, 75, 76, 77, 85, and
86 as outlined in Plaintiffs’ separate statement filed on March 13, 2024. Defendant
failed to meet and confer in good faith and failed to show substantial
justification for opposing the motion, both of which constitute abuse of the
discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.) Defendant is ordered to pay $2,800
in sanctions within 10 days to Plaintiffs for fees incurred to prepare this
motion.