Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 21STCV16626, Date: 2022-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Department 71: Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff at (213) 830-0771 before the set hearing time.  See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).   All parties are otherwise encouraged to appear by Court Call for all matters.

Case Number: 21STCV16626    Hearing Date: July 29, 2022    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production (Set One) is granted in part and denied in part.  Plaintiffs’ unopposed request for monetary sanctions is denied.

           Plaintiffs Mario Galicia Rangel aka Mario Galicia (“Galicia”) and Daniela Espinosa De Los Monteros Gonzalez aka Daniela Espinosa (“Espinosa”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for an order compelling Defendant American Honda Motor Co. (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) Nos. 30, 31, 32, and 33. (Notice of Motion pg. 1; Separate Statement.)  In addition, Plaintiffs request monetary sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys of record in the amount of $2,420.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 1.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on February 14, 2022, with a hearing date scheduled for September 9, 2022, which was advanced to June 6, 2022, and thereafter continued to July 29, 2022. During the May 24, 2022 Informal Discovery Conference, Defendant agreed to provide responsive documents to the instant motion by June 7, 2022 and that upon receipt of the responsive documents, Plaintiff would cancel the instant motion.  Defendant has not filed an opposition, and as of the hearing date Plaintiff has not cancelled the instant motion, suggesting production of responsive documents has not yet been made. 

On May 31, 2018, Plaintiffs entered into a warranty contract with Defendant regarding a 2018 Honda Odyssey (“subject vehicle”). (Complaint ¶14.) Plaintiffs alleged that the vehicle was delivered with serious defects and nonconformities to the warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to HVAC, structural, exterior and electrical.  (Complaint ¶15.) 

Request No. 30 seeks all documents identifying repurchases made by Defendant of 2018 Honda Odysseys and allegedly containing any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiffs presented the subject vehicle to Defendant for repair.

Request No. 31 seeks documents relating to complaints by owners of the 2018 Honda Odyssey vehicle regarding any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiffs presented the subject vehicle to Defendant or its authorized repair facility for repair.

Request No. 32 seeks all surveys, reports, summaries, or other documents in which owners of the 2018 Honda Odyssey vehicle have reported to Defendant problems with any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiffs presented the subject vehicle to Defendant or its authorized repair facility for repair.

Request No. 33 seeks documents that describe, relate, or refer to the numbers of owners of the 2018 Honda Odyssey vehicle who have complained of any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiffs presented the subject vehicle to Defendant or Defendant’s authorized repair facility for repair. 

Defendant initially responded to the requests with objections, but in supplemental responses stated it would produce documents as soon as the underway searches for responsive documents based on the agreed-upon search terms were completed, and subject to the entry of a protective order.  (Separate Statement, pgs. 4-5, 12-13, 21-22, 30-31.)  However, as discussed above, Defendant has not produced responsive documents. 

Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further responses to Requests Nos. 30, 31, 32, and 33 in part.  The requests seek documents identifying repurchases and/or complaints made by owners of vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle, information as to the number of complaints, and documents in which owners of vehicles of the same year, make and model as the subject vehicle reported defects similar to those alleged by Plaintiffs. 

Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part and denied in part, as follows:

1.        Defendant shall produce any customer complaints relating to defects that are similar to the alleged defects claimed by Plaintiffs in vehicles within California for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle, for the period May 31, 2018 to present.

2.        Defendant shall produce documents evidencing repurchases made by Defendant of vehicles of the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle, for the period of May 31, 2018 to present, for defects that are similar to the alleged HVAC, structural, electrical, and exterior defects claimed by Plaintiffs, for vehicles in California. 

3.        Defendant shall produce any surveys, reports, summaries, or other documents in which owners of vehicles of the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle, for the period of May 31, 2018 to present, have reported to Defendant problems with any of the conditions at issue in the subject vehicle.

4.        All other requests for further production are DENIED.

5.        Defendant shall provide code compliant supplemental responses in compliance with this order within 20 days.  

In light of the mixed ruling on the motion, the Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Dated:  July _____, 2022

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court