Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV01145, Date: 2024-03-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV01145 Hearing Date: March 5, 2024 Dept: A
23CMCV01145
Elvia Silva Torres, et al v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
The
complaint alleges that Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Honda”),
issued a written warranty to Plaintiffs in connection with their purchase of a 2021
Honda HR-V. The vehicle developed defects that Honda allegedly failed to repair
and/or failed to repurchase the vehicle in violation of the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiffs
argue that Honda’s unverified responses to all 31 of the document requests were
not Code-compliant and consisted of boilerplate objections. Honda later provided verifications but
provided only a partial production of documents. Plaintiffs’ counsel attempted
to engage in an effort to meet and confer with defense counsel, who failed to
respond in good faith.
Honda argues
that there is only request at issue since Honda agreed to produce documents
responsive to 30 other requests or stated it was not able to comply. Plaintiffs have more than they need.
Plaintiffs did not file a reply brief by February
27, 2024, which is nine court days before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005
subd. (b).)
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A
motion to compel further responses to a document request is proper where the
moving party believes the responding party’s statement of compliance is
incomplete, or a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, evasive,
and/or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.) Plaintiffs’ counsel initiated meet and confer
efforts with a lengthy detailed letter. (Gregory Sogoyan Decl., ¶ 20.) Honda
did not respond. (Id., ¶ 21.)
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
Notwithstanding
defense counsel’s belief that Plaintiffs’ meet and confer letter was
“boilerplate” and “disingenuous,” there is no evidence that defense counsel
responded at all, which is required by statute. (Opp. 9:13-19.) While defense
counsel contends it agreed to produce certain categories of documents, defense
counsel imposed limitations in its responses by agreeing to produce documents
subject to objections, which improperly permits Honda to unilaterally decide
what is discoverable, without moving for a protective order. (Opp. Sep. Stmt,
2:8-13-18.) Honda also objects to the extent Plaintiffs
ask for a response on behalf of any other entity. (Opp. Sep. Stmt. 2:12-13.) Plaintiffs’
document request is not addressed to anyone else but Honda.
The
parties should be cognizant of the court’s discretion to impose sanctions in
addition to other sanctions sought in discovery motions for a party’s failure
to respond to a document request or to meet and confer in good faith (among
other misconduct.) (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2023.050.)
To prevail on a claim for violation of
the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“the Act”) Plaintiffs’ burden is to
establish 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.)
Plaintiffs
request documents that are directed to discrete categories of information: (1) internal
investigation, history, repair history, etc. regarding Plaintiffs’ vehicle
(Requests 1-14); (2) Honda’s warranty and replacement/repurchase policies,
procedures, and practices (Requests 15, 18, 20, 22 and 23-29-31); (3) policies
and procedures relating to Honda’s escalation process and handling of “lemon
law” requests (16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22); and (4) Honda’s knowledge of the foregoing
with respect to vehicles of the same year, make and model as the subject
vehicle (“other vehicle evidence.”) (Sagoyan Decl., ¶ 16.) All of the requested
information is relevant and discoverable.
The
discovery of internal investigations and analyses of the defects at issue is relevant
to all three elements of Plaintiffs’ prima facie case to establish the defect’s
existence, Defendant’s knowledge of the purported defects, and any conduct
employed by Honda with respect to the defect and is required by the Act.
The
discovery is also relevant to the recovery of civil penalties. (Jensen
v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 136.)
To recover civil penalties, the buyer must 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 a claim for civil penalties, 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.” (Jensen at 136.) Accordingly, the internal analysis
and investigative documents and Defendant’s policies and procedures in
addressing these complaints, including escalation of such complaints are
relevant and discoverable.
Defendant’s
general objections are not supported. Where a responding party objects to
testimony concerning confidentiality, trade secret, attorney-client privilege,
work product, or any other privilege, the responding party is required to
provide a privilege log of all documents withheld and the specific objection
asserted to enable the trial court to determine whether any privilege applies.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240 subd. (b).) The privilege log must contain clear
descriptions of the documents as set forth in the statute. (Id.)
Plaintiffs
are entitled to discover “other vehicle” evidence. (Donlen
v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154.) The requests are
relevant to Plaintiffs’ burden of establishing the manufacturer’s knowledge of
the defect, whether the manufacturer complied with its obligations under the
Act to reasonably attempt to repair vehicle of the same make and model with
respect to the defects here at issue. (Oregel
v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.)
Honda
has not established with any evidence that compliance with the document
request will be unreasonably burdensome and oppressive. Honda’s remedy
is to move for a protective order, not refuse to respond or unilaterally impose
limitations on Plaintiffs’ discovery. Honda did not meet its burden of proof on
this issue. (West
Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.)
Honda
contends it ultimately agreed to provide responses or otherwise did not have
responsive documents (See Request No. 7 for electronically stored
trouble codes.) All of the responses are qualified by the limitation that all
responses are subject to the objections. The response is incomplete, vague, and
evasive in that Plaintiffs cannot determine what has been identified but
withheld subject to Honda’s unilaterally imposed objections.
V. CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve within 10 days, further,
verified responses and production of documents responsive to all categories at
issue without limitation, and provide a privilege log of documents withheld
where applicable. The response shall be in a Code-compliant format. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, et seq.) As Plaintiffs did not request imposition
of sanctions, none is awarded.