Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case 21STCV46015 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV46015, Date: 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46015 Hearing Date: October 12, 2022 Dept: 74

21STCV46015 FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ CASTANON vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO

Plaintiffs Francisco Gutierrez Castano and Elena Olivia’s Motion to Compel Further Responses

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Reponses is GRANTED in part. The motion is MOOT as to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production of Document, Requests Nos. 18 and 37-43 and GRANTED to Requests Nos. 45 and 46, as limited herein. Defendant is ordered to serve further verified, code compliant responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 45-46, as limited herein, without objection within 20 days and to produce all responsive documents within 30 days. The Court declines to impose sanctions.

Background

On December 16, 2021, Plaintiffs Francisco Gutierrez Castano and Elena Olivia filed this lemon law action against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. The complaint alleges Plaintiffs’ 2021 Honda Accord suffered from electrical nonconformities that Defendant failed to repair in a reasonable number of attempts. The complaint asserts two causes of action under the Song Beverly Act and seeks civil penalties.

Motion

On August 18, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 18, 37-43, and 45-46.

Opposition

In opposition, Defendant contends the motion is moot as to Requests Nos. 18 and 37-43 due to the service of supplemental responses and Plaintiffs are not entitled to documents responsive to Requests Nos. 45 and 46 regarding other consumers’ repairs and complaints.

Reply

In reply, Plaintiffs contend they met and conferred in good faith, the documents sought in Requests 45 and 46 are relevant, and Defendant has not substantiated its burden objection.

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 their First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on April 7, 2022. (Lupinek Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A.) Defendant served its responses on May 24, 2022. (Id. ¶ 8, Ex. B.) Plaintiffs do not indicate whether an extension was granted, but do not argue the responses were untimely. Plaintiffs sent a meet and confer letter on June 22, 2022 addressing the requests at issue. (Id. ¶ 10, Ex. D.) Defendant did not respond and Plaintiffs sent a second letter on June 25, 2022. (Id. ¶ 11, Ex. E.) The parties agreed to extend Plaintiffs’ motion deadline to August 18, 2022. (Id. ¶ 9, Ex. C.)

Requests Nos. 18 and 37-43

In opposition, Defendant provides evidence it provided supplemental responses to Requests Nos. 18 and 37-43 on September 23, 2022. (Opp. at 7:26-8:10; Redfern Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. H.) The motion is therefore MOOT as to these requests.

Defendant Must Provide Further Responses to Requests Nos. 45 and 46

Request No. 45 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS evidencing complaints by owners of 2021 Honda Accord vehicles regarding any of the complaints that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented to YOUR or YOUR authorized repair facilities for repair during the warranty period.”

Request No. 46 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS evidencing warranty repairs to 2021 Honda Accord vehicles regarding any of the components that YOU or YOUR authorized repair facilities performed repairs on under warranty.”

Defendant responded to each of these requests solely with objections. 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.

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 support its claim of burden. (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 549–550 (“An objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required. As the objecting party, [Defendant] had the burden of supplying supporting evidence, but in response to [Plaintiffs’] motion to compel it offered none.”) (quotations and citations omitted).)

Contrary to Defendant’s contentions, (Opp. at 10:1-15:17), 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 Plaintiffs’ 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.”).)

However, Defendant objected to Requests Nos. 45 and 46 based upon overbreadth and the Court finds the requests are overbroad. Request No. 46 is not expressly limited to the defects experienced by Plaintiffs and the Court shall further limit the scope of these requests to complaints and repairs at issue to those by California consumers. Accordingly, Defendant must provide a verified, code-compliant response, without objection to Requests 45 and 46, amended as follows:

- Request No. 45: “All DOCUMENTS evidencing complaints by owners of 2021 Honda Accord vehicles in California regarding any of the complaints that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented to YOUR or YOUR authorized repair facilities for repair during the warranty period.”

- Request No. 46: “All DOCUMENTS evidencing warranty repairs to 2021 Honda Accord vehicles in California regarding any of the components in the SUBJECT VEHICLE that YOU or YOUR authorized repair facilities performed repairs on under warranty.”

The motion is GRANTED as to Requests Nos. 45 and 46, as limited herein.

Sanctions

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(h), “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Plaintiffs request sanctions in the amount of $3,790.00 against Defendant and its counsel of record. The Court finds both parties acted with substantial justification and declines to impose sanctions.