Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV02443, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV02443 Hearing Date: June 4, 2024 Dept: K
2. Plaintiffs Lisa Leon and James Avilez’s Motion to Compel Defendant FCA US LLC’S Further Responses to Form Interrogatory is GRANTED. FCA is to provide further, Code-compliant response to Interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1 and 17.1 within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.
3. Plaintiffs Lisa Leon and James Avilez’s Motion to Compel Defendant FCA US LLC’S Further Responses to Special Interrogatory is GRANTED in part (i.e., as to Interrogatories Nos. 3-10, 12-17, 39-41, 43 and 44) and otherwise DENIED (i.e., as to Interrogatories No. 1-2, 18, 27 and 34). FCA is to provide further, Code-compliant responses to Interrogatories Nos. 3-10, 12-17, 39-41, 43 and 44 within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.
4. Plaintiffs Lisa Leon and James Avilez’s Motion to Compel Defendant FCA US LLC’S Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED in part (i.e., as to Requests Nos. 18-46, 49-51, 59, 63, 67, 68, 73 and 75-78) and otherwise DENIED (i.e., as to Request No. 61). FCA is to provide further, Code-compliant responses to Requests Nos. 18-46, 49-51, 59, 63, 67, 68, 73 and 75-78 within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.
5. Plaintiffs Lisa Leon and James Avilez’s Motion to Compel Defendant Envision Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram of West Covina’s Further Responses to Request for Admissions is DENIED.
6. Plaintiffs Lisa Leon and James Avilez’s Motion to Compel Defendant Envision Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram of West Covina’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatory is GRANTED. Envision is to provide further, Code-compliant responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, 17.1 and 50.1 within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.
7. Plaintiffs Lisa Leon and James Avilez’s Motion to Compel Defendant Envision Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram of West Covina’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatory is GRANTED in part (i.e., as to Interrogatories Nos. 10, 12, 27, 28, 31, 34 and 35) and otherwise DENIED (i.e., as to Interrogatories No. 1, 8 and 9). Envision is to provide further, Code-compliant responses to Interrogatories Nos. 10, 12, 27, 28, 31, 34 and 35 within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.
8. Plaintiffs Lisa Leon and James Avilez’s Motion to Compel Defendant Envision Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram of West Covina’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Envision is to provide further, Code-compliant responses to Requests Nos. 1-35 within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.
Background
Plaintiffs Lisa Leon and James Avilez (together, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:
On August 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against FCA US LLC (“FCA”), Envision Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram of West Covina (“Envision”) and Does 1-50 for:
1.
Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Express
Warranty
2.
Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Implied
Warranty
3.
Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2(h)
4.
Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1796.5
The Final Status Conference is set for October 22, 2024. Trial is set for November 5, 2024.
1. Motion to Compel Furthers Re: Request for Admission (i.e., as to FCA)
Legal Standard
“[T]he party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that . . . (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete [and/or that] (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, 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, 2033.290, subd. (b)(1).) “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., § 2033.290, subd. (b)(2).)
Notice of the motion must be provided “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the requests. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, 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., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)
Discussion
Plaintiffs move the court for an order compelling FCA to provide further, verified Code-compliant responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions, Set No One (i.e., Nos. 3-4, 20-21 and 24-26) within 10 days from the date of the hearing on this motion.
Plaintiffs’ counsel Michael Saeedian (“Saeedian”) represents as follows:
On
November 22, 2023, the subject discovery was served. (Saeedian Decl., ¶ 5, Exh.
1.) On February 26, 2024, FCA served its unverified responses. (Id., ¶
6, Exh. 2). On April 17, 2024, FCA served its verifications. (Id., ¶ 7).
On March 12, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel Adina Ostoia (“Ostoia”) sent a meet and
confer letter to FCA’s counsel Erin E. Hanson (“Hanson”), requesting
supplemental responses within 10 days from the date of the letter. (Id.,
¶ 8, Exh. 3.) During an April 15, 2024 Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) it
was agreed that FCA “would supplement Request for Admission and complete
document production by April 19, 2024;” to date (i.e., as of April 26, 2024),
however, FCA has not provided any such responses. (Id., ¶¶ 9 and 10).
Again, the requests in issue are Nos. 3-4, 20-21 and 24-26.
Request No. 3 asks FCA to admit that the subject vehicle is a “consumer good” under Civil Code § 1791(a). Request No. 4 asks FCA to admit that Plaintiff is a “buyer” under Civil Code § 1791(b). Requests Nos. 24-26 asks FCA to admit that it does not possess any specific facts reflecting that the problems Plaintiff encountered with respect to the subject vehicle were caused by misuse, abuse or lack of maintenance, respectively.
The court has reviewed FCA’s responses thereto. FCA, by failing to oppose the motion, has not met its burden of justifying its objections to the requests. With that said, the court determines that FCA’s substantive response is compliant with Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220, subdivision (c) (i.e., “[i]f a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter”). No further responses are warranted.
Request No. 20 asks FCA to admit that it tracks the number of its vehicles repurchased or replaced in California. Request No. 21 asks FCA to admit that it trains its employees to request additional opportunities to repair a vehicle after a repurchase has been requested by a customer.
The court has reviewed FCA’s response thereto, which is comprised entirely of objections. Again, FCA has not met its burden of justifying its objections to the requests. A further response, then, is warranted.
The motion is granted in part (i.e., as to Request Nos. 20-21) and otherwise denied (i.e., as to Requests Nos. 3-4 and 24-26). FCA is to provide a further, Code-compliant response to Request No. 20 within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.
2. Motion to Compel Furthers Re: Form Interrogatory (i.e., as to FCA)
Legal Standard
“[T]he propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that . . . (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete[,] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate[, and/or that] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, 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, 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) “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., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(2).)
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 propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing. . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the requests. (Coy, supra, 58 Cal.2d at 220-221.)
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction. . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)
Discussion
Plaintiffs move the court for an order compelling FCA to provide further, verified Code-compliant responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set No One (i.e., Nos. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1 and 17.1) within 10 days from the date of the hearing on this motion.
See synopsis of Motion #1. Saeedian represents in his declaration accompanying the instant motion that it was agreed during the April 15, 2024 IDC that FCA “would supplement Form Interrogatory 12.1 and complete document production by April 19, 2024,” but that no supplemental responses have been provided as of the April 26, 2024 motion filing date. (Id., ¶¶ 9 and 10).
Again, the interrogatories at issue are Nos. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1 and 17.1. The court has reviewed FCA’s responses thereto. FCA, by failing to oppose the motion, has not met its burden of justifying its objections to the requests. A further response to Interrogatory No. 1.1 is warranted, because the substantive response provided fails to identify any person(s) who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses. FCA explicitly stated that it has “no percipient knowledge of the identity of these individuals” (i.e., previously defined as “service managers and other dealership personnel who may have been involved in the repair of Plaintiffs vehicle from Envision”). As to Interrogatory No. 12.1, FCA has not responded to each subpart. A further response to Interrogatory No. 12.1 is warranted.
The court believes a further response to Interrogatory No. 15.1, which addresses subparts (a)-(c) for each denial of a material allegation and each special of affirmative defense in its answer, and a further response to Interrogatory No. 17.1, which addresses subparts (a)-(d) for each response that is not an unqualified admission, is also warranted.
The motion is granted. FCA is to provide further, Code-compliant responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1 and 17.1 within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.
3. Motion to Compel Furthers Re: Special Interrogatory (i.e., as to FCA)
Legal Standard
See Motion #2.
Discussion
Plaintiffs move the court for an order compelling FCA to provide further, verified Code-compliant responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set No One (i.e., Nos. 1-10, 12-18, 27, 34, 39-41, 43 and 44) within 10 days from the date of the hearing on this motion.
See synopsis of Motion #1. Saeedian represents in his declaration accompanying the instant motion that it was agreed during the April 15, 2024 IDC that FCA “would supplement Request for Admission and complete document production by April 19, 2024,” and FCA “has not provided any supplemental responses to the identified SI” as of the motion filing date. (Id., ¶¶ 9 and 10).
Again, the interrogatories in issue are Nos. 1-10, 12-18, 27, 34, 39-41, 43 and 44.
Interrogatory No. 1 asks for the terms of coverage, time and mile limitations and exclusions of each of FCA’s written warranties for the subject vehicle. Interrogatory No. 2 asks FCA to identify each inspection it conducted of the subject vehicle from the date it left the factory to the present. Interrogatory No. 3 asks for all contacts FCA had with any employees of any dealership or any repair facility regarding the subject vehicle. Interrogatory No. 4 asks for the average cost to FCA of a repurchase of a vehicle of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle it manufactured in the State of California.
Interrogatory No. 5 asks FCA to state the conditions per vehicles sold (C/1000) for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 7 ask FCA to list each database, system, or software used to store, query, or analyze [actual or anticipated failure or replacement rates]/[condition, issue, problem, or defect occurrence rates], respectively. Interrogatory No. 8 asks FCA to state the number of 2022 Dodge RAM 1500 vehicles it manufactured which were repurchased in the last five years in the state of California. Interrogatory No. 9 asks FCA to identify the number of vehicle repurchases and replacements that it has made in California in response to consumers’ personal requests (i.e. a request directly from the consumer) from 2017 to present. Interrogatory No. 10 asks FCA to state its definition of “reasonable number of repairs” when it considers repurchasing a vehicle in the state of California.
Interrogatory No. 12 asks FCA if it provided training, policies, procedures, or guidance to its authorized dealerships regarding the sale of 2022 Dodge RAM 1500 vehicles. Interrogatories No. 13-15 ask FCA to identify all training, policies, procedures, or guidance that it provided its authorized dealerships regarding the [sale or lease]/[service]/[repair] of 2022 Dodge RAM 1500 vehicles, respectively.
Interrogatory No. 16 asks FCA to identify its policies and procedures for determining eligibility for a vehicle replacement or repurchase in California prior to a customer demand. Interrogatory No. 17 asks FCA to identify its representative(s) most knowledgeable regarding its handling of Plaintiff’s request(s) for a refund of the purchase price of the subject vehicle. Interrogatory No. 18 asks for the content of all policies FCA had in effect from 2017 to the present under which a consumer in California could obtain a refund of the purchase price or a replacement of a motor vehicle it manufactured or distributed.
Interrogatory No. 27 asks FCA to list each date (not just the date the subject vehicle was dropped off) the subject vehicle was at its authorized repair facilities for warranty repairs. Interrogatory No. 34 asks FCA to identify all contacts it had with any employees of any dealership or any repair facility regarding any request to repurchase or replace the subject vehicle. Interrogatory No. 39 asks FCA if it is FAC’s contention that it or its authorized repair facilities were not given a reasonable number of attempts to repair the subject vehicle, to state facts that support YOUR contention. Interrogatory No. 40 asks FCA to identify the person it employed that it most knowledgeable of the facts supporting the contention set forth in Interrogatory No. 39. Interrogatory No. 41 asks for documents supporting the contention set forth in Interrogatory No. 39.
Interrogatories Nos. 43 and 44 ask FCA to identify [all persons it employed]/[all persons not employed by it] who supplied information utilized in answering these interrogatories, respectively.
The court has reviewed FCA’s responses thereto. FCA provided objection-only responses to Interrogatories Nos. 4-10, 12-16 and 39-41. FCA, by failing to oppose the motion, has not met its burden of justifying its objections to the requests; as such, further responses are warranted as to these interrogatories.
FCA’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 27 and 34, however, are sufficient and comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.230. Its responses to Interrogatories No. 2 and 18 are likewise adequately responsive. No further responses need be made.
A further response to Interrogatory No. 3 is warranted, inasmuch as FCA’s substantive response does not respond to the interrogatory. A further response to No. 17 is warranted, as FCA has failed to identify any representative.
Further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 43 and 44 are warranted, because the substantive responses provided fail to identify any person(s) who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses.
4. Motion to Compel Furthers Re: Requests for Production (i.e., as to FCA)
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 that] (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 the court for an order compelling FCA to provide further, verified Code-compliant responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set No One (i.e., Nos. 18-46, 49-51, 59, 61, 63, 67, 68, 73 and 75-78) within 10 days from the date of the hearing on this motion.
See synopsis of Motion #1. Saeedian represents in his declaration accompanying the instant motion that it was agreed during the April 15, 2024 IDC that FCA “would supplement Request for Production and complete document production by April 19, 2024” and that FCA “has not provided any supplemental responses to the identified RFP” as of the motion filing date. (Id., ¶¶ 9 and 10).
Again, the requests in issue are Requests Nos. 18-46, 49-51, 59, 61, 63, 67, 68, 73 and 75-78. Request No. 18 seeks FCA’s warranty claims policy and procedure manual(s) from 2017 to the present. Request No. 19 seeks documents evidencing FCA’s policies and procedures since 2017 concerning the issuance of refunds or provision of replacement vehicles to buyers in the State of California under the Song-Beverly Act (“Song Beverly”). Request No. 20 seeks documents evidencing procedures it used for the handling of complaints by consumers regarding vehicles it manufactured or distributed. Request No. 21 seeks documents evidencing the policies, procedures, and/or instructions which FCA’s employees and authorized agents should follow after it has made a decision to authorize either a refund of the purchase price, or a replacement vehicle, to its customer.
Request No. 22 seeks documents evidencing policies, procedures, and/or instructions since 2017 that FCA’s employees and agents should follow when evaluating a customer request for their money back or a replacement of a motor vehicle it manufactured or distributed. Request No. 23 seeks documents evidencing FCA’s training materials related to its policy regarding how to calculate a repurchase. Request No. 24 seeks documents evidencing FCA’s policies, procedures, or guidelines for determining whether a vehicle is eligible for a vehicle repurchase.
Request No. 25 seeks documents evidencing FCA’s training material related to its policy to encourage customers to give it another opportunity to repair their vehicles. Request No. 26 seeks documents evidencing FCA’s policy defining what constitutes a repair to determine eligibility for repurchase or replacement in California. Request No. 27 seeks documents FCA issued which evidence policies, procedures and/or instructions since 2017 which its authorized repair facilities should follow regarding customer requests for a refund of the price paid for a vehicle or a replacement vehicle.
Requests Nos. 28 and 29 seek documents evidencing FCA’s [Lemon Law Escalation Process]/[call center escalation process], respectively. Request No. 30 seeks documents evidencing any predictive model used to determine if one of Defendant’s vehicles is a candidate for escalation. Request No. 31 seeks documents any consultant provided FCA from 2017 to present that are related in any way to Song Beverly. Request No. 32 seeks documents evidencing any policies, procedures, or guidelines provided by FCA to any agency regarding what constitutes a substantial nonconformity under Song Beverly from 2017 to present. Request No. 33 seeks documents evidencing statistics for the number of repurchases and replacements FCA has made in California in response to consumers’ personal requests (i.e. a consumer request without an attorney) from 2017 to present.
Requests Nos. 34, 37, 40 and 43 seek documents evidencing complaints by owners of 2022 Dodge RAM 1500 vehicles regarding [Infotainment System]/[Speaker System]/[Air Conditioning System]/[Emergency Braking System] concerns evidenced by the repair orders for the subject vehicle, respectively. Requests Nos. 35, 38, 41 and 44 seek surveys, reports and summaries in which owners of 2022 Dodge RAM 1500 vehicles had complaints regarding [Infotainment System]/[Speaker System]/[Air Conditioning System]/[Emergency Braking System] concerns evidenced by the repair orders for the subject vehicle, respectively. Requests Nos. 36, 39, 42 and 45 seek documents evidencing vehicle repurchases made by FCA of 2022 Dodge RAM 1500 vehicles and allegedly containing conditions, defects, or nonconformity regarding [Infotainment System]/[Speaker System]/[Air Conditioning System]/[Emergency Braking System] concerns evidenced by the repair orders for the subject vehicle, respectively. Request NO. 46 seeks documents evidencing the numbers of owners 2022 Dodge RAM 1500 vehicles who have complained of any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformity for which Plaintiff presented the subject vehicle to FCA or its authorized repair facility for repair.
Request No. 49 seeks documents which discuss above-average repair rates to 2022 Dodge RAM 1500 vehicles. Request No. 50 seeks documents which describe sales brochures, literature or any other promotional materials provided or distributed by FCA regarding vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Request No. 51 seeks documents related to the wiring diagrams for any systems related to the subject vehicle’s concerns. Request No. 59 seeks documents which relate to any communications between FCA and the National Highway Transport Safety Administration regarding defects in 2022 Dodge RAM 1500 vehicles.
Request No. 61 seeks a computer printout or similar summary of the subject vehicle repair history from the distributor’s and/or manufacturer’s records. Request No. 63 seeks documents including but not limited to manuals, publications, directives and direct dealer notifications or advisements regarding handling warranty repairs on the subject vehicle. Request No. 67 seeks documents relating to FCA’s certification of the subject vehicle. Request No. 68 seeks documents relating to FCA’s inspection of the subject vehicle for certification. Request No. 73 seeks documents relating to the Customer Call Center, including but not limited to, all flow charts, processes, and/or scripts. Request No. 75 seeks documents related to Defendant’s Customer Contact Line and/or Technical Hot Line. Requests Nos. 76 and 77 seek documents related to efforts by FCA to reduce the number of [repeat repair attempts for a customer]/[reacquired vehicles], respectively. Request No. 78 seeks documents related to repeat repair procedures for remedying customer concerns.
The court has reviewed FCA’s responses thereto. FCA provided objection-only responses to Requests Nos. 18-46, 49-51, 59, 63, 67, 68, 73 and 75-78. FCA, by failing to oppose the motion, has not met its burden of justifying its objections to the requests; as such, further responses are warranted as to these requests.
FCA’s substantive response to Request No. 61, however, sufficiently complies with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.220. No further response is warranted.
The motion is granted in part (i.e., as to Requests Nos. 18-46, 49-51, 59, 63, 67, 68, 73 and 75-78) and otherwise denied (i.e., as to Request No. 61). FCA is to provide further, Code-compliant responses to Requests Nos. 18-46, 49-51, 59, 63, 67, 68, 73 and 75-78 within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.
5. Motion to Compel Furthers Re: Request for Admission (i.e., as to Envision)
Legal Standard
See Motion #1.
Discussion
Plaintiffs move the court for an order compelling Envision to provide further, verified Code-compliant responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions, Set No One (i.e., Nos. 3, 4, 7 and 17) within 10 days from the date of the hearing on this motion.
Saeedian represents as follows: On November 30, 2023, the subject discovery was served. (Saeedian Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. 1.) On February 26, 2024, FCA served its unverified responses. (Id., ¶ 6, Exh. 2). On March 11, 2024, Ostoia sent a meet and confer letter to Envision’s counsel Hanson, requesting supplemental responses within 10 days from the date of the letter. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. 3.) During an April 15, 2024 Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) it was agreed that Envision would supplement the RFAs in question by April 19, 2024; however, FCA has not provided any such responses, as of the April 26, 2024 filing date of the motion. (Id., ¶¶ 8 and 9.
Again, the requests in issue are Nos. 3, 4, 7 and 17.
Request No. 3 asks Envision to admit that the subject vehicle is a “consumer good” under Civil Code § 1791(a). Request No. 4 asks Envision to admit that Plaintiff is a “buyer” under Civil Code § 1791(b). Request No. 7 asks Envision to admit that FCA uses a pre-determined rate schedule to pay Envision for repair work. Request No. 17 asks Envision to admit that FCA provides FCA factory training to Envision’s dealership employees.
The court has reviewed Envision’s responses thereto. Envision, by failing to oppose the motion, has not met its burden of justifying its objections to the requests. However, the court determines that Envision’s substantive responses are compliant with Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220, subdivision (c).
The motion is denied.
6. Motion to Compel Furthers Re: Form Interrogatory (i.e., as to Envision)
Legal Standard
See Motion #2.
Discussion
Plaintiffs move the court for an order compelling Envision to provide further, verified Code-compliant responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set No One (i.e., Nos. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, 17.1 and 50.1) within 10 days from the date of the hearing on this motion.
See synopsis of Motion #5. Saeedian represents in his declaration accompanying the instant motion that it was agreed during the April 15, 2024 IDC that Envision “would supplement Form Interrogatory 12.1 and complete document production by April 19, 2024,” but that no supplemental responses have been provided as of the April 26, 2024 motion filing date. (Id., ¶¶ 8 and 9).
Again, the interrogatories in issue are Nos. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, 17.1 and 50.1. The court has reviewed Envision’s responses thereto. Envision, by failing to oppose the motion, has not met its burden of justifying its objections to the interrogatories. A further response to Interrogatory No. 1.1 is warranted, because the substantive response provided fails to identify any person(s) who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses. As to Interrogatory No. 12.1, Envision stated that it “identifies its dealership personnel who may have been involved in the sale of the Subject Vehicle” and that “[p]ursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, [it] refers to the Sales files that have been produced, which should reference the names of the individuals involved,” which the court believes is responsive; however, Envision has not responded to each subpart. A further response to Interrogatory No. 12.1 is warranted. The court believes a further response to Interrogatory No. 15.1, which addresses subparts (a)-(c) for each denial of a material allegation and each special of affirmative defense in its answer, and a further response to Interrogatory No. 17.1, which addresses subparts (a)-(d) for each response that is not an unqualified admission, is also warranted. Envision has likewise failed to respond to each subpart of Interrogatory No. 50.1; as such, a further response is warranted.
The motion is granted. Envision is to provide further, Code-compliant responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, 17.1 and 50.1 within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.
7. Motion to Compel Furthers Re: Special Interrogatory (i.e., as to Envision)
Legal Standard
See Motion #2.
Discussion
Plaintiffs move the court for an order compelling Envision to provide further, verified Code-compliant responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set No One (i.e., Nos. 1, 8-10, 12, 27, 28, 31, 34 and 35) within 10 days from the date of the hearing on this motion.
See synopsis of Motion #1. Saeedian represents in his declaration accompanying the instant motion that it was agreed during the April 15, 2024 IDC that FCA “would supplement Special Interrogatory No. 12.1 and complete document production by April 19, 2024,” and FCA “has not provided any supplemental responses to the identified SI” as of the motion filing date. (Id., ¶¶ 8 and 9).
Again, the interrogatories in issue are Nos. 1, 8-10, 12, 27, 28, 31, 34 and 35. Interrogatory No. 1 asks for the terms of coverage, time and mile limitations and exclusions of each of Envision’s written warranties for the subject vehicle. Interrogatory No. 8 asks Envision for the names, dates and contact information of each FCA non-attorney employee it contacted in regard to reported defects in the subject vehicle. Interrogatory No. 9 asks Envision to identify all Technical Service Bulletins (“TSBs”) by reference number and date that relate in any way to any of the reported defects made to it by Plaintiffs. Interrogatory No. 10 asks Envision to state FCA’s policy for Envision to determine what a reasonable number of repair attempts is.
Interrogatory No. 12 asks Envision to state FCA’s policies and procedures for Envision in regard to employee training. Interrogatory No. 27 asks Envision to identify its policies and procedures for contacting clients about the diagnosis and repair of FCA vehicles. Interrogatory No. 28 asks Envision to identify its policies and procedures for customer complaints made to it about the repair history of their vehicle. Interrogatory No. 31 asks Envision to identify all FCA policies and procedures for Envision that describe what a reasonable number of attempts to repair a vehicle is. Interrogatory No. 34 asks Envision to identify all FCA policies and procedures for Envision that describe what a substantial impairment to use, value, and safety of a customer vehicle is. Interrogatory No. 35 asks Envision to identify all FCA policies and procedures for Envision in regard to reporting to FCA the amount of time a customer vehicle is at the dealership for warranty repairs.
The court has reviewed Envision’s responses thereto. Envision provided objection-only responses to Interrogatories Nos. 10, 12, 27, 28, 31, 34 and 35. Envision, by failing to oppose the motion, has not met its burden of justifying its objections to the requests; as such, further responses are warranted as to these interrogatories.
Envision’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 8 and 9, however, are sufficient and comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.230. No further responses need be made.
The motion is granted in part (i.e., as to Interrogatories Nos. 10, 12, 27, 28, 31, 34 and 35) and otherwise denied (i.e., as to Interrogatories No. 1, 8 and 9). Envision is to provide further, Code-compliant responses to Interrogatories Nos. 10, 12, 27, 28, 31, 34 and 35 within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.
8. Motion to Compel Furthers Re: Requests for Production (i.e., as to Envision)
Legal Standard
See Motion #4.
Discussion
Plaintiffs move the court for an order compelling Envision to provide further, verified Code-compliant responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set No One (i.e., Nos. 1-35) within 10 days from the date of the hearing on this motion.
See synopsis of Motion #1. Saeedian represents in his declaration accompanying the instant motion that it was agreed during the April 15, 2024 IDC that FCA “would supplement Form Interrogatory 12.1 and complete document production by April 19, 2024” and that FCA “has not provided any supplemental responses to the identified RFP” as of the motion filing date. (Id., ¶¶ 8 and 9).
Again, the requests in issue are Requests Nos. 1-35. Request No. 1 seeks documents which relate to any maintenance performed by Envision on the subject vehicle. Request No. 2 seeks documents of any communications between Envision and FCA regarding the subject vehicle. Request No. 3 seeks documents which relate to each of Envision’s affirmative defenses. Request No. 4 seeks TSBs provided by FCA to Envision related to components repaired by Envision on the subject vehicle. Request No. 5 seeks documents which relate to any inspection of the subject vehicle performed by Envision.
Request No. 6 seeks photographs and videos of the subject vehicle. Request No. 7 seeks documents evidencing sale contracts, lease agreements, service contracts, service agreements, and/or warranties related to the sale or lease of the subject vehicle. Request No. 8 seeks documents evidencing repairs on the subject vehicle at any time and by any of Envision’s employees. Request No. 9 seeks documents evidencing any request by FCA for the repair order or repair history of the subject vehicle occurring on or before August 9, 2023. Request No. 10 seeks documents that reflect the warranty repair history of the subject vehicle in its possession, custody, or control or that it has access to through its computer systems.
Request No. 11 seeks documents evidencing contact between Plaintiffs and Envision. Request No. 12 seeks documents evidencing contact with any non-attorney and relating or referring to Plaintiff or the subject vehicle. Request No. 13 seeks documents evidencing the number of repairs performed by Envision in 2020, 2021, and 2022 on 2022 Dodge RAM 1500 vehicles for complaints about Infotainment System, Speaker System, Air Conditioning System, and Emergency Braking System. Request No. 14 seeks documents evidencing written or recorded statements from any person concerning the subject vehicle or Plaintiff’s complaints concerning the subject vehicle.
Request No. 15 seeks the warranty information provided by FCA Envision about the warranty coverage on the subject vehicle. Request No. 16 seeks documents related to Envision’s policies and procedures for determining whether a particular repair on 2022 Dodge RAM 1500 vehicles are covered by FCA warranty. Request No. 17 seeks Envision’s warranty claims policy and procedure manual(s) provided to it by FCA from 2017 to the present. Request No. 18 seeks documents evidencing Envision’s franchise agreement with FCA. Request No. 19 seeks documents evidencing policies and procedures provided to it by FCA in regard to repeat repairs on customer vehicles. Request No. 20 seeks documents demonstrating FCA’s policies and procedures for Envision to handle customer complaints that the vehicle is a lemon. Requests Nos. 21 and 22 seek documents evidencing FCA’s policies and procedures provided to Envision to [identify a substantially impairing defect]/[report warranty repairs to FCA], respectively.
Request No. 23 seeks documents evidencing Envision’s policies, procedures, or guidelines for determining whether a vehicle is eligible for a vehicle repurchase under California law. Request No. 24 seeks documents evidencing Envision’s training of its technicians, service advisors, and/or service managers to categorize a particular repair as “warranty” or “internal” on a repair order. Request No. 25 seeks documents evidencing all warranty repair payments by FCA to Envision for the repairs on the subject vehicle.
Request No. 26 seeks documents evidencing any FCA employee sent to Envision’s dealership to assist with repairs on the subject vehicle. Request No. 27 seeks documents evidencing all TSBs which have been issued for 2022 Dodge RAM 1500 vehicles. Request No. 28 seeks documents evidencing all recalls which have been issued for 2022 Dodge RAM 1500 vehicles that involve any part, component, sub-component, system, assembly, or sub-assembly for which the subject vehicle was subject to one or more repair attempts as reflected in Envision’s Warranty Claim Records or in the repair orders produced during discovery in this case.
Request No. 29 seeks documents provided to Envision by FCA to identify a substantial impairment of use, value, or safety in a customer vehicle based upon the repairs performed by Envision. Request No. 30 seeks documents regarding FCA’s repair procedures consulted and followed by Envision’s technicians during the completion of repairs for the subject vehicle. Request No. 31 seeks documents about parts delays for vehicles of the same make, model, and year as the subject vehicle. Request No. 32 seeks documents regarding handling warranty repairs on the subject vehicle. Request No. 33 seeks documents relating to any floorplan financing provided by FCA to Envision. Request No. 34 seeks documents related to Envision’s contacts with FCA Customer Contact Line and/or Technical Hot Line. Request No. 35 seeks documents demonstrating FCA’s repeat repair policies and procedures for Envision’s dealership.
The court has reviewed Envision’s responses thereto. Again, Envision, by failing to oppose the motion, has not met its burden of justifying its objections to the requests.
Envision’s substantive response to Requests Nos. 1-35 fail to comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.220; as such, further responses are warranted.
The motion is granted. Envision is to provide further, Code-compliant responses to Requests Nos. 1-35 within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.