Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV0205, Date: 2024-10-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV0205 Hearing Date: October 10, 2024 Dept: A
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
The complaint
alleges that Defendant issued Plaintiff an express warranty in connection with
Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2021 Jeep Wrangler made and distributed by Defendant.
The vehicle suffered from defects that Defendant allegedly failed to repair
within a reasonable number of attempts in violation of the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act.
Plaintiff
argues that Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s document request was untimely,
and therefore, all objections were waived. Defendant failed to provide responses
and production of documents that are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Defendant
refuses to provide responses despite attempts to meet and confer.
In
opposition, Defendant argues that it has provided code-compliant responses to
all requests and has supplemented or amended responses to all requests at
issue. The document requests are burdensome. Plaintiff asks for “class-action
type discovery” which is overbroad in scope.
In
reply, Plaintiff reiterates that the responses were untimely served nearly a
month after its deadline. Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendant served
supplemental responses on August 15, 2024, one day before the opposition was
due are not Code-compliant and unclear as to whether Defendant maintains prior
waived objections.
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
Defendant
has not addressed the failure to timely respond to Plaintiff’s document
request. Plaintiff served the document
request by email on April 10, 2024. (Oliva Decl., ¶ 16, Ex. 4.) Defendant’s
responses were due on May 14, 2024, which is 30 days from service, extended by
two court days for electronic service. Defendant served responses on June 4,
2024, consisting of objections. Accordingly, all objections are waived. (Cal
Code Civ Procedure § 2031.310.) This warrants Defendant’s further, substantive,
and verified responses without any objections.
Defendant’s
subsequent emailing of documents on August 15, 2024, or verified supplemental
responses on August 15, 2024, does not cure Defendant’s waiver in the first
instance, as the document production appears subject to the objections
previously asserted. There is no showing that Defendant has withdrawn any
previously asserted objections. (Gregory Brezovec decl. Ex. B-D.)
The
discovery sought is relevant to issues raised in cases for violation of the
SBA. To prevail, Plaintiff has 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. Plaintiff
requests documents relating to (1) Defendant’s internal investigation and (2)
Defendant’s analysis of the defects alleged and Defendant’s policies and
procedures with respect to Lemon Law cases.
The categories
of documents at issue are relevant to establish Defendant’s knowledge of the
defect and attempts to repair which is an element of Plaintiff’s case in chief
including whether Defendant attempted to comply with their obligations under
the SBA. 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.) Accordingly,
discovery of Defendant’s knowledge and policies and procedures are relevant and
discovery.
Plaintiff
is entitled to discover information of the same defects in vehicles of the same
year, make, and model other than Plaintiff’s vehicle as it is relevant to Defendant’s
knowledge of the defect in the same vehicle, not necessarily Plaintiff’s
vehicle, as well as 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
may not unilaterally limit its production in a manner that Defendant believes
is appropriate. Defendant’s remedy is a protective order.
V. CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve
amended substantive, verified, and Code-compliant responses without any
objections as well as production of requested documents within 10 days.