Judge: Michael Small, Case: 23STCV04125, Date: 2023-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: 23STCV04125    Hearing Date: September 26, 2023    Dept: 57

Plaintiffs Austin Smith and Christopher Alery (“Plaintiffs”) sued Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song Beverly Act”) asserting that the certified pre-owned 2021 Ford Fusion (“the Subject Vehicle”) they purchased did not conform to applicable warranties and that Ford’s authorized repair facilities failed to repair the Subject Vehicle after a reasonable number of opportunities.

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ motion for an order compelling Ford to provide further responses to Request Numbers 25 and 40-45 in Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set One (“the Motion”).  Ford’s responses to these Interrogatory Requests consisted of objections.  Plaintiffs contend that the objections are not justified.  The Court agrees and is granting the Motion. 

 Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300, subdivision (a), a trial court may order a party to serve a further response to an interrogatory when the court finds that: “(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate[; or] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”    The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer an  interrogatory.  (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)  Contrary to Ford’s contention, and as the Plaintiffs correctly point out, there is no requirement that the party seeking an order to compel further responses to interrogatories must first establish “good cause”” for such an order.  The good cause requirement that Ford invokes applies to motions to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, not motions to compel further responses to interrogatory requests.  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550.)  Thus, the only question is whether Ford carried its burden of justifying its objections to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory Requests.  In the main, the answer to that question is no. 

The Special Interrogatory Requests at issue in the Motion are as follows:

         25. IDENTIFY all PERSONS responsible for the customer relations department in the district or region having jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ complaints during the RELEVANT PERIOD.

40. Identify the individual(s) whose responsibility it is to supervise to ensure that YOU are properly determining whether a vehicle should be repurchased or replaced pursuant to The Song-Beverly Warranty Act.

41. Please describe with particularity how the individual(s) identified in YOUR response to the Special Interrogatory above perform their duties.

42. Explain with particularity all aspects of YOUR investigation into whether the SUBJECT VEHICLE qualified or was eligible for repurchase or replacement pursuant to the Song-Beverly Warranty Act.

43. Identify all person(s) involved in YOUR investigation, including any individuals with whom YOU communicated regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

44. Identify all DOCUMENTS consulted, reviewed and/or obtained in YOUR investigation.

45. State the name, address, and telephone number of all PERSON(S) responsible for YOUR decision to not repurchase or replace the SUBJECT VEHICLE by full name, address, and telephone number.

In essence, Special Interrogatory No. 25 seeks personnel information at Ford’s Customer Relations Center (“CRC”).  Special Interrogatory Nos. 40 and 41 seek the identities of supervisors who ensure that Ford is properly determining whether a vehicle should be repurchased or replaced under the Song-Beverly Act and how they perform their duties.  And Special Interrogatory Nos. 42-45 seek information regarding an investigation into whether the Vehicle qualified or was eligible for repurchase or replacement pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act.

Ford’s objections to each of these Interrogatory Requests rests primarily on the premise that, because the Plaintiffs did not request that Ford repurchase the Subject Vehicle, the Requests are irrelevant.  Ford is mistaken.  The Song-Beverly Act does not require a consumer to request a repurchase of a vehicle that is alleged to fail to conform to applicable warranties in order for the consumer to recover under the  Act.  Rather, the Act requires the vehicle manufacturer to monitor efforts to repair a vehicle and to offer consumers the Act’s remedies, including repurchase.  (Krotin v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 294, 302-303.)  Thus, Ford’s objection that the Plaintiffs failed to request a repurchase of the Subject Vehicle lacks justification.

Ford also objected to Interrogatory Request Nos. 40-45 on the ground that the Requests seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege.  The Court does not see that widespread problem with these Requests.  Of course, Ford need not disclose privileged information.  But the attorney-client privilege does not absolve Ford of the duty to provide substantive, not privileged responses to Request Nos. 40-45.

Ford is on firmer footing to the extent that it objects to the temporal scope of Request Nos. 40-41 as overly board in that those two Requests seek information  that is not appropriately tethered to the Subject Vehicle.  This is a justifiable concern.  To address it, the Court narrows the time frame of the two Requests to cover the period between the date the Plaintiffs purchased the Subject Vehicle (May 11, 2022) to the present.

In light of the Court’s ruling on Ford’s objections, Ford is directed to provide responses to Interrogatory Nos. 25 and 40-45 within 21 days from the hearing on the Motion.