Judge: Michael Small, Case: 23STCV06998, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling
Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.
Case Number: 23STCV06998 Hearing Date: March 6, 2024 Dept: 57
Plaintiffs Jose Villanueva and Reyna
Luviano brought an action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
(“Song-Beverly Act”) against Defendants Glendale Dodge, LLC dba Glendale Dodge
Chrysler Jeep (“Glendale Dodge”) and FCA US LLC (“FCA”). Plaintiffs
allege that (1) on June 29, 2017, they entered into a warranty contract with
FCA regarding a 2017 Dodge Challenger (“Subject Vehicle”) manufactured by FCA and
sold by Glendale Dodge; (2) within the express warranty period, the Subject
Vehicle had defects and nonconformities to the warranty, including electrical,
interior, exterior and engine problems; and (3) Plaintiffs delivered the
Subject Vehicle to an authorized FCA repair facility for repair, which was unable
to conform the Subject Vehicle to the warranty after a reasonable number of
attempts. Plaintiffs further allege that
FCA failed to replace the Subject Vehicle or make restitution under the
Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiffs seek, inter
alia, a civil penalty of up to twice the amount of actual damages for FCA’s
willful failure to comply with its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act.
Pending before the Court are two discovery motions that Plaintiffs filed. One motion seeks an order compelling FCA to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ first set of Special Interrogatories, numbers 45-48. The other motion seeks an order compelling FCA to provide further responses to requests for production numbers 45 and 46. Plaintiffs also seek monetary sanctions against FCA in both motions. Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court is granting the motions to the extent they seek an order compelling further responses but denying the motions to the extent they seek sanctions. FCA must provide further the further responses that Plaintiffs are seeking within 30 days of this order.
46.
State
the repairs per thousand vehicles sold (R/1000) for 2017 Dodge CHALLENGER
vehicles.
47.
Identify
in order the five symptoms with the highest repairs per thousand (R/1000) for
2017 Dodge CHALLENGER vehicles, and the corresponding repairs per thousand.
48.
Identify
in order the five components with the highest repairs per thousand (R/1000) for
2017 Dodge CHALLENGER vehicles, and the corresponding repairs per thousand.
FCA US objects
because this interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant to the
subject matter of this litigation and is therefore not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. . . . FCA US further objects that
this interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad; as a result, it is
harassing, oppressive, and burdensome."
The burden is on FCA as the
responding party to establish facts necessary to justify its objections. (Coy
v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v.
Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) In the Court’s view, FCA has failed to carry
that burden.
Relevance
FCA argues that interrogatories
45-48 “bear no relevance to . . . whether Plaintiffs’ vehicle suffered a
non-conformity and, if so, whether FCA . . . failed to conform the vehicle to
warranty within a reasonable number of repair attempts. And, if the failure to
conform the vehicle to warranty substantially impaired the vehicle’s use, value
or safety. Nothing else is in issue.” (Opposition, p. 3.)
The Court finds that the special
interrogatories are appropriately tailored and not overbroad. Nor are the special interrogatories ambiguous
-- they are clear and capable of being responded to.
Undue Burden
Plaintiffs move for an order compelling FCA’s further responses to their first set of Requests for Production (“RFP”) on the ground that FCA has not provided responses to RFP numbers 45 and 46 compliant with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310. Number 45 seeks documents evidencing complaints by owners of 2017 Dodge Challenger vehicles that are similar to any of Plaintiffs’ complaints for which they presented their Subject Vehicle to FCA or its authorized repair facilities during the warranty period. Number 46 seeks documents evidencing warranty repairs to any of the components of 2017 Dodge Challenger vehicles that FCA’s authorized repair facilities performed.
Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing good cause for the production of the documents in question. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have carried that burden.. Specifically, the documents sought in RFP numbers 45 and 46 are relevant to the issue whether FCA willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act in the face of knowledge of similar complaints and warranty repairs. The burden thus shifts to FCA to justify its objections to the RFPs. The Court concludes that FCA failed to carry that burden. Contrary to FCA’s assertion, the RFPs are not vague, ambiguous, or overly broad.
The information to be produced in response to RFPs 45 and 46 shall be limited to California owners’ complaints and warranty repairs performed in California.