Judge: Michael T. Smyth, Case: 37-2023-00016056-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 28, 2024

03/29/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael T. Smyth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00016056-CU-BC-CTL RYAN VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 11/06/2023

Plaintiff Jamie Anne Ryan's Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs is GRANTED. No sanctions are imposed.

The court notes that Plaintiff's papers have not done a clear job of tying the outstanding issues to the specific RFPs. While the separate statement (ROA 24) has broken up the responses into batches based on legal analysis, it is helpful to the court to summarily break down issues by responses as the reply papers have done for certain RFPs (ROA 38, Reply at 6:13-22). The court also advises Plaintiff's counsel that in the future, it ought to review supplemental responses prior to filing a motion to compel.

In any case, in the interest of expediency, the court has reviewed the papers and rules as follows.

The requested discovery is not patently overbroad and is generally consistent with the customary scope of discovery in lemon law cases. Discovery related to vehicles other than the subject vehicle is permissible and to the degree Defendant has refused to produce documents on that basis, its objections are overruled except that the court limits the definition of 'JAGUAR LAND ROVER VEHICLES' to mean vehicles purchased in California of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Accordingly, where such term is used, Defendant is ordered to produce documents related vehicles purchased in California of the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle. Defendant is also ordered to produce its policies and procedures and dealership agreements as requested.

In its further responses, Defendant is ordered to specify which documents, if any, it is withholding.

Finally, with respect to RFP Nos. 12, 18, 35, 36, 37, 43, and 44, which seek ESI related to Transmission Defects, Defendant claims that no such documents exist or have ever existed. The court requests clarification on what, if any, searches were performed to determine that no such documents ever existed. If they exist, such documents are discoverable in a limited fashion with respect to vehicles of the same make, model, and year. Defendant is ordered to perform searches and produce such documents.

The parties are ordered to agree to a protective order as necessary and Defendant is ordered to produce a privilege log for any documents withheld on the basis of privilege.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3092288  4