Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22PSCV00005, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00005    Hearing Date: December 8, 2022    Dept: O

Plaintiffs Nohemy G. Sam’s and Gustavo A. Sam’s Motion to Compel Further Responses and Documents from Defendant to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED [see below].

Background    

Plaintiffs Nohemy G. Sam and Gustavo A. Sam (“Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:

On or about June 3, 2020, Plaintiffs purchased a 2020 Audi Q5, VIN No. WA1ANAFY5L2048265 (“subject vehicle”). Plaintiffs allege that the subject vehicle suffers from various defects and that the subject vehicle has not been repaired after a reasonable number of attempts. 

On January 4, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for:

1.            Violation of Subdivision (d) of Civil Code Section 1793.2

2.            Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civil Code Section 1793.2

3.            Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2

4.            Breach of Express Written Warranty (Civil Code Section 1791.2 Subdivision (a); Section 1794)

5.            Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civil Code Section 1791.1; Section 1794) 

The Final Status Conference is set for December 12, 2023. Trial is set for January 9, 2024.

Legal Standard 

“[T]he demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that. . . (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive [and/or] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) 

The moving party must demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith attempt” at an informal resolution of each issue presented. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) “In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(3).) 

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents must set forth specific facts showing “good cause” justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) If the moving party has shown good cause for the production of documents, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)  

Notice of the motion must be provided “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.310, subd. (c).)

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction. . . 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) 

Discussion 

Plaintiffs move, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310, for an order striking Defendant’s objections and compelling Defendant’s further responses and documents to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 16, 19, 20, 21 and 42. 

Merits 

On April 27, 2022, Plaintiffs propounded the subject discovery on Defendant; that same day, Plaintiffs sent a meet and confer letter regarding ESI. (Liu Decl., ¶¶ 13 and 16, Exhs. 4 and 6.) On June 1, 2022, Defendant electronically served responses, along with a proposed stipulated protective order (“SPO”) modeled after the LASC Model Protective Order for Liu’s review. (Id., ¶¶ 14 and 17, Exh. 5.) On June 7, 2022 and June 21, 2022, Defendant served its document production. (Id., ¶ 15.) On June 16, 2022, Plaintiffs sent a meet and confer letter and a signed copy of Defendant’s proposed SPO. (Id., ¶ 18, Exh. 7.) On July 1, 2022, Defendant’s counsel Matthew Linnell (“Linnell”) proposed that counsel meet and confer telephonically; this occurred on July 6, 2022. (Id., ¶¶ 20 and 21, Exh. 9.) During this telephonic meet and confer, Liu proposed removing “including but not limited to” from the definition of the HVAC System Defect. (Id., ¶ 21.) Linnell maintained that Defendant would stand by its objections and not produce internal investigation documents or documents relating to same year, make, and model vehicles. (Id., ¶ 22.) This motion followed on July 19, 2022. The court determines that Plaintiffs have made a good faith attempt to meet and confer. The court further determines that the instant motion, supported by Liu’s declaration, adequately sets forth good cause. 

Plaintiffs state that the discovery requests are divisible into two categories: “(1) those relating to Defendant’s internal investigation and analysis of the HVAC System Defect plaguing Plaintiffs’ vehicle and establishing that Defendant previously knew of such defects and knew it could not repair them regardless of repair attempts but nevertheless failed to repurchase the vehicle (i.e., Nos. 16, 19, 20, and 21), and (2) those relating to the organizational structure governing Defendant’s employees responsible for the repurchase and/or replacement of defective vehicles (i.e., No. 42.)” (Motion, 1:11-17.) 

These categories are addressed as follows: 

Prior Knowledge Discovery 

Request No. 16 seeks all documents concerning any internal analysis or investigation regarding the HVAC SYSTEM DEFECT[1] in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 

Request No. 19 seeks all documents concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to the HVAC SYSTEM DEFECT of vehicles the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

Request No. 20 seeks all documents concerning failure rates of vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJEC VEHICLE as a result of the HVAC SYSTEM DEFECT.

Request No. 21 seeks all documents concerning or relating to any fixes for the HVAC SYSTEM DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

At the outset, the court determines that the definition of HVAC SYSTEM DEFECT is impermissibly overbroad by its inclusion of the phrases “including, but not limited to” and “any other concern.” The definition shall be limited to the same conditions, defects, or nonconformities which Plaintiffs submitted the subject vehicle to Defendant or Defendant’s authorized facilities for repair.

The general relevance of the information sought is otherwise established, as the documents are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding whether Defendant knew of the defects at issue, yet failed to repurchase the subject vehicle. In Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143, the appellate 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.  (Id. at 154 (emphasis added).)  Donlen thus provides a basis for permitting discovery to extend beyond Plaintiff’s specific vehicle.  A defendant’s knowledge of the defect is relevant to whether Defendant willfully violated the statute.  (Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 136; 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.”].)

Defendant claims that the requests are “unduly burdensome.” However, “[t]he objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required.” (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) Defendant has not provided any such evidence. At any rate, the court determines that Defendant’s concerns of overbreadth and undue burden have been sufficiently addressed via the limitations imposed above.

Defendant also claims that documents Plaintiffs are seeking are confidential and trade secrets. Objections based on confidentiality are not proper grounds for withholding responsive information. (See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23 [“We know of no case holding that this is a proper ground for objection to an otherwise proper interrogatory. Assuming that the information called for by this interrogatory is of a confidential nature which defendants do not want to have included in a public record, they presumably could have applied for a protective order. . .”].) Defendant has not produced any admissible evidentiary materials showing that any of the documents contain protectable “trade secrets, proprietary and/or confidential information.” The parties, moreover, executed a “Stipulation and Protective Order—Confidential Designation Only,” which was filed with the court on June 20, 2022.

Defendant’s concern regarding third party privacy rights is addressed via the redaction of any individually identifiable information.

Finally, although Defendant interposed objections on the basis of the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine as well as on the basis of premature disclosure of expert witness information, Defendant has not met its burden of justifying these objection. Any documents withheld from production on this basis must be accompanied by a privilege log.

Evaluation Discovery

Request No. 42 seeks all documents which evidence Defendant’s organizational charts of people within Defendant’s customer service call center or prelitigation department.

Organizational charts are relevant to the identification of witnesses regarding Defendant’s decision-making process and authorization for evaluating and handling a consumer’s request for a vehicle repurchase or otherwise obtaining redress. However, the request is overbroad as phrased. The court notes that Plaintiffs have not indicated if and when they requested a buyback of the subject vehicle. The documents relevant as to this request appear to be those which were in place during on November 13, 2021 (i.e., when Plaintiffs appear to have last presented the subject vehicle for repair prior to filing the complaint [Liu Decl., ¶ 7]) through February 28, 2022 (i.e., when Plaintiffs appear to have last presented the subject vehicle for repair [Id., ¶ 8)] time frame. The court limits this request as to this time period. Defendant’s remaining objections are rejected, for the reasons set forth above.

Conclusion

The motion is granted, subject to the limitations set forth above. Defendant is to provide further, Code-compliant responses, including responsive documents and any privilege log, within 20 days from the date of the hearing.