Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case 21STCV31815 2022-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV31815, Date: 2022-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 74 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept74@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative.

IF THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT RECEIVE AN EMAIL INDICATING THE PARTIES ARE SUBMITTING ON THE TENTATIVE RULING AND THERE ARE NO APPEARANCES AT THE HEARING, THE MOTION WILL BE PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

If you decide not to submit on the tentative ruling, REMOTE APPEARANCES ARE AUTHORIZED AND STRONGLY ENCOURAGED. Please visit the court’s Here for You | Safe for You News Center for the latest orders governing court business. http://www.lacourt.org/newsmedia/ui/HfySfy.aspx

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind: The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record. Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply repeat that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated. If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

The motion is GRANTED as to Requests Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery concerning the alleged engine, electrical, and structural system defects evidenced in the repair history of her 2019 Jeep Cherokee and Defendant’s policies, practices, and investigations applicable to vehicles of the same year, make, and model in California.

Defendant is ordered to serve further verified, code compliant responses to Requests Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 within 20 days and to produce all responsive documents within 30 days. To the extent Defendant claims the attorney-client or work product privileges apply over any of the responsive documents or information, it shall simultaneously serve a privilege log with the document production that, at a minimum, identifies each document for which a privilege is claimed, its author, recipients, the date of preparation, the privilege claimed, and any other information necessary to evaluate the privilege. Defendant shall remove all other objections.

On August 27, 2021, Plaintiff Isabel Pedroza filed this lemon law action against Defendant FCA US, LLC asserting three causes of action under the Song-Beverly Act. The complaint alleges Plaintiff purchased a 2019 Jeep Cherokee that suffered from “engine, electrical, and structural system defects.”

On May 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One numbers 3, 5, 6, 9, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44.

The propounding party may bring a motion to compel further responses to requests for production if it believes the statement of compliance is incomplete, the representation of an inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or if an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310.) The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2016.040; 2031.310(b)(2)), and a separate statement. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1345.)

As an additional requirement only as to requests for production, the motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1).) “[T]hat burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court, 96 Cal. App. 4th 443, 447 (2002).) The opposing party bears the burden of justifying any objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 97-98.)

Plaintiff served Request for Production of Documents, Set One upon Defendant on October 4, 2021. (Pfeffer Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. 2.) After an extension, Defendant served unverified responses containing statements of compliance and objections on January 6, 2022. (Id. ¶ 15, Ex. 3.) Defendant’s substantive responses were unverified, but its objections were preserved. (See Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 658.)

On February 10, 2022, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendant regarding its “failure to provide documents in response to Plaintiff’s first set of Request for Production of Documents which were served on October 4, 2021.” (Id. Ex. 4.) This letter did not address any specific request or any of the objections. (Ibid.)

On March 23, 2022, Plaintiff sent another email and meet and confer letter noting Defendant’s responses were not verified and specifically addressing Request for Production Nos. 1-37. (Id. Ex. 5.) On March 27, 2022, Defendant’s counsel provided a link to its document production and indicated “[t]here are supplemental documents that will be produced subject to a protective order.” (Id. Ex. 6.) On March 30, 2022, Defendant provided a 30-day extension to the motion deadline. (Id. Ex. 6.)

While Plaintiff purports to attach “as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s response letter dated April 7, 2022,” (Pfeffer Decl. ¶ 24), no such exhibit number or letter is attached to Pfeffer’s declaration filed with the Court. Plaintiff does not provide any further discussions regarding the substance of Defendant’s responses. On June 29, 2022, the Court signed the parties’ stipulated protective order.

A motion to compel further responses “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).) The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.) “The Discovery Act requires that, prior to the initiation of a motion to compel, the moving party declare that he or she has made a serious attempt to obtain an informal resolution of each issue.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.) “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate involves the exercise of discretion.” (Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016.) Where a party fails to make any real effort at informal resolution, a failure which is particularly egregious would justify an immediate and outright denial of further discovery. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 433-34; Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at 1437.)

Plaintiff’s motion seeks to compel further responses to, among others, Requests for Production Nos. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44, which are included in both the Notice of Motion and the separate statement. As noted above, these requests were not discussed in Plaintiff’s meet and confer letters. (Pfeffer Decl. Ex. 4-6.) Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration confirms the parties did not discuss Request Nos. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44. (Pfeffer Decl. ¶ 19 (“Plaintiff explained that requests for document numbers 4 through 15 seek documents relating to Plaintiff’s own vehicle . . . Plaintiff’s requests for documents numbers 16 through 33 seek documents relating to Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act . . . Lastly, Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents number 34 through 37 seek documents relating to internal investigations and analysis into the cause of the problems complained of by Plaintiff regarding the Subject Vehicle.”).) Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to Requests Nos. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 based upon Plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer as to these requests.

As to Requests Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37, Plaintiff’s motion and separate statement demonstrate good cause for their production to the extent they relate or apply to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle in California. Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for the production of documents without such limitation. For example, many of Plaintiff’s requests seek documents dating back to 2010, which will necessarily result in the production of immaterial documents in connection with this action involving Plaintiff’s 2019 Jeep Cherokee that Plaintiff first sought repairs for on April 15, 2019. (Pfeffer Decl. ¶ 6.)

Request No. 16 seeks “Any DOCUMENT related in any way to determining whether repairs should be covered by YOUR warranty” without limitation as to whether the documents at issue would apply to Plaintiff’s vehicle, during the time Plaintiff owned the vehicle, or to California consumers.

Request No. 17 seeks “All of YOUR warranty claims policy and procedure manual(s) from 2010 to the present” without limitation as to whether the manuals at issue would apply to Plaintiff’s vehicle, during the time Plaintiff owned the vehicle, or to California consumers.

Request No. 18 seeks “All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to YOUR rules, policies, or procedures since 2010 concerning the issuance of refunds to buyers or providing replacement vehicles to buyers in the State of California under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act,” without limitation as to whether such rules, policies, or procedures applied between 2019 and the present when Plaintiff could have sought a refund or replacement.

Request No. 22 seeks “All DOCUMENTS evidencing and/or describing YOUR training materials related to YOUR policy regarding how to calculate a repurchase,” without limitation as to whether the training materials at issue would apply to Plaintiff’s vehicle, during the time Plaintiff owned the vehicle, or to California consumers.

Request No. 24 seeks “All DOCUMENTS referencing, evidencing, and/or relating to YOUR training material related to YOUR policy to encourage customers to give YOU another opportunity to repair their vehicles” without limitation as to whether the training materials at issue would apply to Plaintiff’s vehicle, during the time Plaintiff owned the vehicle, or to California consumers.

Request No. 29 seeks “All DOCUMENTS which evidence any predictive model used to determine if one of Defendant’s vehicles is a candidate for escalation” without limitation to the type of vehicle at issue in this case, the relevant time period, or application to vehicles in California.

Request No. 30 seeks “All DOCUMENTS any CONSULTANT provided YOU from 2010 to present that are related in any way to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act” without limitation to the type of vehicle at issue or the relevant time period that Plaintiff owned the vehicle.

Request No. 31 seeks “All DOCUMENTS evidencing any policies, procedures, or guidelines provided by YOU to any agency regarding what constitutes a substantial nonconformity under the Song-Beverly Act from 2010 to present” without limitation to the type of vehicle at issue in this case or the relevant time period that Plaintiff owned the vehicle.

Request No. 32 seeks All DOCUMENTS evidencing or describing statistics for the number of repurchases and replacements Defendant has made in California in response to consumers’ personal requests (i.e. a consumer request without an attorney) from 2010 to present” without limitation to the type of vehicle at issue in this case or the relevant time period that Plaintiff owned the vehicle.

By failing to oppose the motion, Defendant did not meet its burden to justify its objections. The motion is GRANTED as to Requests Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37. However, the requests shall be limited to documents related to, applicable to, or involving consumers with, vehicles in California of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle.