Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 23PSCV02843, Date: 2024-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Rosalino O. Gaspar’s and Luis Alberto Gaspar Ortiz’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One is DENIED.

Plaintiffs Rosalino O. Gaspar and Luis Alberto Gaspar Ortiz (“Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:

On July 14, 2020, Plaintiffs purchased a 2020 Honda Odyssey, VIN No. 5FNRL6H55LB039030 (“subject vehicle”). The subject vehicle suffers from various defects and has not been repaired after a reasonable number of attempts.

On September 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM”), Turn 2 AG LLC dba Honda World Downey and Does 1-10 for:

“[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).)

Plaintiffs move the court, per Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310, for an order striking Defendant’s objections and compelling Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (i.e., No.30).

On November 1, 2023, Plaintiffs propounded the subject discovery on Defendant. (Grigoryan Decl., ¶ 17, Exh. 3.) On December 5, 2023, Defendant provided responses. (Id., ¶ 18, Exh. 4.) On December 13, 2023, Grigoryan sent Defendant’s counsel Soheyl Tahsildoost (“Tahsildoost”) a meet and confer letter, requesting therein that Tahsildoost provide a response thereto by December 20, 2023. (Id., ¶ 20, Exh. 5.) On December 20, 2023, Defendant’s counsel Kevin Zipser (“Zipser”) sent a response letter. (Id., ¶ 21, Exh. 6). On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent another meet and confer letter. (Id., ¶¶ 22 and 25, Exh. 7).

Counsel attended an Informal Discovery Conference on February 7, 2024; the minute order from that date reflects that Defendant’s counsel was to prepare and circulate a stipulation for protective order and that Plaintiffs’ counsel could proceed with filing the instant motion if the parties were unable to resolve their dispute regarding Request No. 30 via meet and confer.

The subject request, No. 30, seeks all documents, in the form of a list or compilation, of other customer complaints in Defendant’s electronically stored information of database(s) that are substantially similar[1] to complaints made by Plaintiffs with respect to the subject vehicle in other 2020 Honda Odyssey vehicles.

Defendant objected to Request No. 30 on the basis that it was vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, sought irrelevant information, failed to describe with reasonable particularity the documents or categories of documents being requested, failed to define the term “complaints made by Plaintiffs” such that the request was vague, ambiguous and called for speculation, asked for information protected by the right to privacy, called for confidential, commercially sensitive, and proprietary or trade secret information and asked Defendant to respond on behalf of any other entity.

Defendant addressed its vague and ambiguous objections in opposition. The court agrees that Plaintiffs’ failure to define “complaints made by Plaintiffs” renders the request vague and ambiguous. No further response is warranted. The motion is denied.

[1] “Substantially similar” was defined therein as “similar customer complaint[s] that would be the same nature of the reported system, malfunction, trouble code, Technical Service Bulletin Recommendation, dashboard indicator light, or other manifestation of a repair problem, as description listed in any warranty summary or repair order for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” Plaintiffs further added the following note: “[The customer complaints in this matter can be found in Defendant’s warranty history/summary and within the line items of the repair orders created at Defendant’s authorized repair facility. If YOU are having issues determining Plaintiff’s Complaints, Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer and list out the specific complaints and the language used to describe them. This should not include any routine or scheduled maintenance items.]”