Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 22STCV03867, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03867    Hearing Date: March 1, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Samantha Daisher’s motion to compel Defendant FCA US LLC to provide further responses to Request for Production, Set One is granted in part and denied in part as described in the ruling below.  Further responses are to be provided within 15 days.

Plaintiff Samantha Daisher (“Daisher”) (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA”) (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One (“RFPs”) Nos. 3, 5, 9, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)

Background

On February 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed her complaint in the instant action against FCA alleging three causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act- Breach of Express Warranty; (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act- Breach of Implied Warranty; and (3) Violation of Song-Beverly Act §1793.  (See Complaint.)  Plaintiff alleges on August 29, 2019, she purchased a new 2019 Jeep Compass (“Subject Vehicle”) that was delivered to Plaintiff with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including electrical and structural system defects.  (Complaint ¶¶8, 10.)

On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff propounded her first set of Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on Defendant, seeking documents relating to (1) Plaintiff’s own vehicle (Request Nos. 4-15); Defendant’s warranty and repurchase policies, procedures, and practices (Request Nos. 16-32); and (3) Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model (Request Nos. 33-37.  (Decl. of Pfeffer ¶18, Exh. 5.)  On or about August 4, 2022, after a 30-day extension by Plaintiff, Defendant served unverified responses that consisted of boilerplate objections and responses that were not Code-compliant.  (Decl. of Pfeffer ¶19, Exh. 6.)  On or about August 5, 2022, Defendant electronically served Plaintiff a letter enclosing verifications for its responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs.  (Decl. of Pfeffer ¶19, Exh. 7.)  On or about August 8, 2022, Plaintiff sent Defendant a reminder email regarding outstanding document production and requested Defendant provide its document production no later than August 10, 2022.  (Decl. of Pfeffer ¶21, Exh. 8.)  On September 27, 2022, Defendant served its document production, but failed to produce the majority of documents requested.  (Decl. of Pfeffer ¶22, Exh. 9.)  On October 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.  Defendant filed its reply on November 16, 2022.  Plaintiff filed her reply on November 22, 2022.

Meet and Confer

On or about August 17, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel attempting a meet and confer in good faith regarding Defendant’s deficient responses and requested overdue documents be submitted by August 19, 2022, and requested Defendant’s response by August 24, 2022.  (Decl. of Pfeffer ¶¶25-26, Exh. 11.)  Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer communications.  (Decl. of Pfeffer ¶27.)  On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel called Defendant’s counsel to further meet and confer and offered Defendant’s counsel additional time to respond to the August 17, 2022, meet and confer letter in exchange for a reciprocal extension of 30 days on Plaintiff’s motion to compel deadline.  (Decl. of Pfeffer ¶28, Exh. 12.)  On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel an additional meet and confer email, to which Defendant did not respond.  (Decl. of Pfeffer ¶¶29, 30, Exh. 13.)  Plaintiff has demonstrated a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve discovery issues outside of court.  (C.C.P. §§2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2).)

Legal Standard

A motion to compel must “set forth specific facts showing good
cause and justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.  (C.C.P. §2031.310(b)(1).)  Plaintiff has the burden to: (1) demonstrate good cause; and (2) set forth specific facts justifying the discovery of the documents requested. (See Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)  An absence of specific facts relating to each category of materials sought to be produced, or mere generalities offered as justification for production, fails to justify compelling
the production of documents.  (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

Motion to Compel

Defendant argues the discovery requests propounded by Plaintiff are vastly disproportionate to the claims at issue in this matter involving only one vehicle.  (Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 185-186.)  Defendant further argues Plaintiff’s motion is devoid of factual evidence necessary to show good cause or other justification for the class action-style discovery Plaintiff seeks.  (Opposition, pg. 7; C.C.P. §2031.310(b)(1).)

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

1.    Defendant shall produce the “Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual” published by Defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the period of August 29, 2019, to present. This includes Defendant’s training materials related to calculating a repurchase under Defendant’s warranty.  (See RFP Nos. 3, 16, 17, 22, 24.)

2.    Defendant shall produce any documents related to the inspection of the subject vehicle.  (See RFP No. 5.)

3.    Defendant shall produce any internal analysis or investigation regarding electrical and structural defects, in vehicles for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle.  (See RFP No. 36.)

4.    Defendant shall produce any customer complaints relating to defects that are similar to the alleged defects claimed by Plaintiff in vehicles within California for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle, for the period August 29, 2019, to present.  (See RFP No. 33.)

5.    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 August 29, 2019, to present, for defects that are similar to the alleged electrical and structural defects claimed by Plaintiff, for vehicles in California.  (See RFP Nos. 9, 18, 29, 32.)

6.    Defendant shall produce all documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for the period of August 29, 2019, to present.  (See RFP No. 31.)

7.    Defendant shall produce Technical Service Bulletins, Recall Notices, and warranty extensions for vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle, and the same defects alleged in the Complaint.  (See RFP Nos. 34, 35.)

8.    Defendant shall produce evidence or describe sales brochures, literature or any other promotional materials provided or distributed by Defendant regarding vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle.  (See RFP No. 37.)

9.    All other requests for further production are DENIED.

10. Defendant shall provide supplemental responses in compliance with this order within 15 days.  

Dated:  March ____, 2023

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court