Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case 21STCV39137 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV39137, Date: 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39137 Hearing Date: September 16, 2022 Dept: 74

21STCV39137 GABRIEL O BARAHONA vs KIA AMERICA

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Reponses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Reponses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED in part.

Request No. 18 shall be further limited to documents “concerning or relating to any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and recalls” in California “concerning the TRANSMISSION DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

Request No. 19 shall be further limited to documents “concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims” in California “related to TRANSMISSION DEFECT, . . . and all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim or reported failure” in California.

Requests Nos. 34-39, and 50 shall be further limited to rules, policies, procedures, instructions, scripts, job prompts, outlines, or any other tool, and training documents (as used in the respective requests) applicable to vehicles in California of the same year, make, and model of Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

Request No. 42 shall be further limited to the customer service call center or prelitigation department that handles customers in California with vehicles of the same year, make and model, as Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

Defendant is ordered to serve further verified, code compliant responses without objection to Request for Production of Documents, Set One Nos. 7, 16-21, 34-39, 42, and 50 as limited herein, within 20 days and to produce all responsive documents within 30 days.

Background

On October 22, 2021, Plaintiffs Gabriel Barahona and Bertha Barahona filed this lemon law action against Defendant Kia America, Inc. The complaint alleges Plaintiffs leased a 2020 Kia Optima on February 10, 2020 that suffered from a “[d]efective transmission system; and [a]ny additional complaints made by Plaintiffs, whether or not they are contained in the records or on any repair orders.” (Compl. 12.) The complaint asserts five causes of action under the Song Beverly Act and seeks civil penalties.

Motion

On June 7, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Request Nos. 7, 16-21, 34-39, 42, and 50.

Opposition

In opposition, Defendant contends it has agreed to produce certain documents subject to a protective order, there is no defect in Plaintiffs’ vehicle, and Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for the discovery sought.

Reply

In reply, Plaintiffs argue Defendant failed to justify its objections, Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause for production, their requests are narrowly tailored, and the defect existed in Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

Plaintiffs’ Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiffs’ objections to the declaration of Jacqueline Bruce Chinery are SUSTAINED.

Motion to Compel Further Responses

Standard

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.)

Discovery at Issue and Meet and Confer Efforts

Plaintiffs’ motion is accompanied by the required separate statement and meet and confer declaration.

Plaintiffs served Requests for Production, Set One upon Defendant on January 19, 2022. (Crandall Decl. ¶ 16, Ex. 5.) Defendant served objection only responses on February 23, 2022. (Id. ¶ 17, Ex. 6.) On April 20, 2022, Defendant provided amended responses, but has failed to produce any documents. (Id. ¶¶ 18-19, Ex. 7.) Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter on May 27, 2022 and Defendant did not substantively respond. (Id. ¶¶ 23-25, Ex. 12.)

Defendant Must Provide Further Responses and Produce Responsive Documents

Plaintiffs indicate the “[t]he Requests seek the following general categories of documents: (1) those relating to Kia’s internal investigations and analyses of the Transmission Defect plaguing Plaintiffs’ vehicle and establishing that Defendant previously knew of such defects but nevertheless refused to repurchase the vehicle (i.e., Nos. 16-21); (2) those relating to Defendant’s warranty and vehicle repurchase policies, procedures, and practices (i.e., Nos. 7, 34-39, 42, 50).” (Not. at i:20-24.)

Plaintiffs’ motion and separate statement generally demonstrate good cause for production of the documents sought as the requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding Defendant’s knowledge of the defects at issue and its policies for compliance with its statutory duties. (Mot. at 9:16-14:1.) Contrary to Defendant’s contentions, (Opp. at 4:23-6:2), other customer’s complaints and defects in the vehicles of the same year, make, and model are relevant and discoverable. In Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154, the court upheld a trial court’s determination that evidence of “the transmission model Ford installed in plaintiff’s truck and other vehicles” should not be excluded from trial as prejudicial in a Song–Beverly Act case brought by a single plaintiff. Therefore, relevant discovery may extend beyond Plaintiff’s specific vehicle. (Cf. Elsworth v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 540, 555 (“Evidence of prior accidents is admissible to prove a defective condition, knowledge, or the cause of an accident, provided that the circumstances of the other accidents are similar and not too remote.”); Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 186 (“A decision made without the use of reasonably available information germane to that decision is not a reasonable, good faith decision.”).)

Once good cause has been shown, a respondent has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed to compel further responses. (Fairmont, supra, 22 Cal.4th at 255; Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at 97-98.) Defendant failed to justify any of its objections.

In its amended response to Request No. 7, Defendant asserted various objections and stated it “agrees to produce, subject to the entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case regarding certain proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information, relevant portions of KA’s Service Policy and Procedures Manual.” In opposition, Defendant does not justify any of its objections and merely reiterated that it “agreed to produce the relevant portions of its Service Policy and Procedures Manual, subject to Protective Order.” (Opp. at 3:24-28.) In reply, Defendant states “[w]hile Kia has not demonstrated the need for a protective order, Plaintiffs will nevertheless stipulate to the Los Angeles Superior Court Model Protective Order – Confidential Designation Only as a compromise.” (Reply at 8:26-28.) Plaintiffs are entitled to verified, objection-free responses that affirm Defendants’ production, subject to the parties’ agreed upon protective order. The motion is GRANTED as to Request No. 7.

Requests Nos. 16 through 21 are narrowly tailored to TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle. The requests define “‘TRANMISSION DEFECT’ as such defects which result in symptoms including, but not limited to: losing power upon acceleration; hesitation upon acceleration; vehicle feeling like it’s going to shut off; shuddering; clutch judder, especially at low speeds; excessive shaking and vibration when turning left and right; performance of Service Alert # 200325; and any other concern identified in the repair history for the subject 2020 Kia Optima, Vehicle Identification Number 5XXGU4L1XLG39804.” (Decl. Ex. 5 at 2:18-24.) Request Nos. 16 through 21 seek the following documents:

- Request No.16: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any internal analysis or investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding TRANSMISSION DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

- Request No. 17: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any communications YOU have had regarding TRANSMISSION DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

- Request No. 18: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and recalls concerning the TRANSMISSION DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

- Request No. 19: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to TRANSMISSION DEFECT, including but not limited to any databases in YOUR possession with information from dealers, service departments, parts departments, or warranty departments, and all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim or reported failure.

- Request No. 20: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning failure rates of vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE as a result of TRANSMISSION DEFECT.

- Request No. 21: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any fixes for TRANSMISSION DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

In opposition, Defendant contends “there are no responsive documents, however, because Plaintiffs’ fabricated ‘TRANSMISSION DEFECT’ does not exist” and therefore Defendant “will supplement its Responses to make clear there is no ‘TRANSMISSION DEFECT.’” (Opp. at 4:4-22.) Defendant’s citation to statements in the repair history that certain technicians believed the vehicle was acting normally does not relieve it of its duty to produce responsive documents. (Chinery Decl. ¶ 6.) As framed, the requests are not dependent upon the affirmative existence of a defect in Plaintiffs’ vehicle and Plaintiffs need not demonstrate the merits of their claims to obtain relevant discovery. (See e.g. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 558.) If Defendant has documents in its possession, custody or control responsive to Requests Nos. 16 through 21 as they pertain to any 2020 Kia Optima experiencing “symptoms including . . . losing power upon acceleration; hesitation upon acceleration; vehicle feeling like it’s going to shut off; shuddering; clutch judder, especially at low speeds; excessive shaking and vibration when turning left and right; performance of Service Alert # 200325; and any other concern identified in the repair history for the subject 2020 Kia Optima, Vehicle Identification Number 5XXGU4L1XLG39804,” they must be produced.

Requests Nos. 16, 17, 20 and 21 are properly limited. However, the Court shall limit Request Nos. 18 and 19 to documents related to California consumers as requests for documents regarding “notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and recalls” issued in other states or countries, and “customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims” in other states are overbroad. Subject to this limitation, the motion is GRANTED as to Requests Nos. 16-21.

Requests Nos. 34-39 and 50 seek documents related to Defendant’s evaluation of customer complaints as well as repurchases and replacements provided under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Defendant asserted objections and notes in opposition it has agreed to produce a subset of responsive documents subject to a protective order. Plaintiffs are entitled to complete, verified responses without objection and production of all responsive documents. However, Plaintiffs’ requests are overbroad as they are not limited to documents applicable to Plaintiff’s vehicle, the defects at issue, and other California consumers. Documents involving policies “since 2017,” (Request Nos. 35, 38), and all documents “used by [Defendant] for the handling of complaints by consumers regarding vehicles [Defendant] manufactured or distributed,” (Request No. 36), are not relevant if they were not applicable to Plaintiffs’ 2020 model year vehicle or their repurchase request.

Request No. 42 seeks “All DOCUMENTS which evidence YOUR organizational charts of people within YOUR customer service call center or prelitigation department.” In opposition, Defendant contends “Any contacts with Plaintiffs and their vehicle are recorded and reflected in the Consumer Assistance Center Case Reports, which KA agrees to produce subject to protective order. That document identifies each person who responded to Plaintiffs’ contacts, who forwarded Plaintiffs’ requests for assistance and who evaluated Plaintiffs’ requests. Plaintiffs’ request for organizational charts can only be for the purpose of harassing KA. Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied.” (Opp. at 7:24-8:2.) The Court disagrees. The organization of Defendant’s customer service call center or prelitigation department is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (See e.g. Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1105 (finding car manufacturer’s internal policies relevant to whether it evidenced an “unreasonable and not a good faith effort to honor its statutory obligations to repurchase defective cars.”).) As above, the Court shall limit this request to the customer service call centers or prelitigation departments that handle customers in California with vehicles of the same year, make and model, as Plaintiffs’ vehicle. The motion is GRANTED as to Request No. 42 subject to this limitation.