Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 23PSCV02942, Date: 2024-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Maria E. Chavez Serna’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED in part (i.e., as to Requests Nos. 1-6, 9-11, 13 and 14) and DENIED in part (i.e., as to Requests Nos. 7, 8, 12 and 15-31). Defendant is to provide further, Code-compliant responses within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

On June 28, 2020, Plaintiff purchased a 2020 Honda CR-V, VIN No. 2HKRW1H55LH410957 (“subject vehicle”). Plaintiff alleges that the subject vehicle suffers from various defects and that the subject vehicle has not been repaired after a reasonable number of attempts.

On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 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).)

Plaintiff moves the court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310, for an order striking Defendant’s objections and compelling Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (i.e., Nos. 1-31).

On November 10, 2023, Plaintiff propounded the subject discovery on Defendant. (Grigoryan Decl., ¶ 18, Exh. 3.) On December 11, 2023, Defendant provided responses. (Id., ¶ 19, Exh. 4.) On December 15, 2023, Grigoryan sent Defendant’s counsel Soheyl Tahsildoost (“Tahsildoost”) a meet and confer letter, requesting therein that Tahsildoost provide a response thereto by December 22, 2023. (Id., ¶ 21, Exh. 5.) On December 22, 2023, Defendant’s counsel Kevin Zipser (“Zipser”) sent a response letter. (Id., ¶ 26, Exh. 6). On December 29, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel purportedly sent another meet and confer letter. (Id., ¶ 28).[1] On February 6, 2024, both parties attended an informal discovery conference, during which the court indicated that Plaintiff could proceed with filing the instant motion if discovery issues were still outstanding after February 13, 2024. This motion followed on February 21, 2024.

Plaintiff represents that Requests Nos. 1-14 pertain to her own vehicle, that Requests Nos. 15-29 pertain to Defendant’s written warranty and policies and procedures related to what is covered under said warranties, how coverage is determined, and training related to warranty coverage, and that Requests Nos. 30 and 31 pertain to documents related to Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. (Motion, 6:3-16).

Request No. 1 seeks documents regarding the subject vehicle that are within Defendant’s Customer Relations Center.

Request No. 2 seeks documents that support each of Defendant’s affirmative defenses.

Request No. 3 seeks documents relating to any inspection of the subject vehicle.

Request No. 5 seeks documents, including manuals, and express warranty booklets provided to consumers with respect to the purchase or lease of the subject vehicle.

Request No. 6 seeks documents relating to any Retail Installment Sales Contracts and/or Lease Agreements, including any associated documents reflecting OEM or aftermarket installed parts, service contracts, and any other writings signed by Plaintiff, in connection with the subject vehicle.

Request No. 7 seeks documents relating to all diagnostic trouble codes that are electronically stored by Defendant or Defendant’s authorized repair facility as a result of any inspections or repairs conducted on the subject vehicle.

Request No. 8 seeks documents, including recalls, technical service bulletins, and dealer advisories that were issued for the subject vehicle.

Request No. 9 seeks documents relating to any contact or communications between Defendant and Defendant’s authorized repair facility regarding the subject vehicle.

Request No. 10 seeks documents that relate to any summaries of all warranty repairs performed on the subject vehicle.

Request No. 11 seeks documents relating to any summaries of all amounts paid by Defendant for warranty repairs performed on the subject vehicle.

Request No. 12 seeks photographs or videotapes of the subject vehicle taken by Defendant or Defendant’s authorized repair facility.

Request No. 13 seeks all documents relating to any contact or communication between Defendant and Plaintiff.

Request No. 14 seeks all documents relating to any contact or communications with any third parties relating to the subject vehicle.

Defendant has asserted a myriad of objections to the foregoing requests, including that they are vague and ambiguous (as to Requests Nos. 1-4 and 6-14), overly broad (as to Requests Nos. 1-14), oppressive (as to Request No. 1), compound (as to Request No. 14), harassing (as to Requests Nos. 3, 4 and 7), unduly burdensome (as to Requests Nos. 3, 4 and 7), seek irrelevant information (as to Requests Nos. 1-4 and 7-8), seek equally available information (as to Request No. 5), are not full and complete in and of themselves and require reference to other documents (as to Request No. 1), are conclusory, devoid of facts, and call for speculation (as to Request No.1), call for a legal conclusion and/or legal analysis (as to Request No. 1), ask Defendant to respond on behalf of another entity (as to Requests Nos. 1-4 and 9-14), seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine (as to Requests Nos. 2-4, 6, 9-11, 13 and 14), fail to describe with reasonable particularity the documents or categories of documents being requested (as to Requests Nos. 2- and 6-14), are beyond the scope of Plaintiff’s allegations (as to Request No. 8), are directed to concerns for which the subject vehicle was presented only one time to an authorized repair facility as concerns presented only once cannot qualify the subject vehicle for repurchase (as to Request No. 8) and/or call for information that is confidential, commercially sensitive and proprietary or trade secret (as to Requests Nos. 2, 3, 9-11, 13 and 14).

Defendant, in opposition, contends that its objections “are necessary based on the phrasing of the requests” (See Opp. Sep. Statement, 3:14, 6:10, 9:5, 11:25, 14:7, 16:21, 19:8, 22:1, 24:22, 27:14, 30:6, 32:14, 35:6 and 37:25) and that Plaintiff included qualifying phrases which expanded the reach of the requests “beyond what is specifically asked for, but in a manner that is ambiguous in violation of the requirement that a request be reasonably particular under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.030(c)(1)” (Id., 3:25-27, 6:21-23, 9:16-18, 12:9-11, 14:18-20, 17:5-7, 19:19-21, 22:12-14, 25:6-8, 27:25-27, 30:17-19, 32:25-27, 35:17-19 and 38:9-11). Defendant fails to meet its burden of justifying any of its objections.

Defendant then asserts that its “technical objections do not preclude [its] substantive responses, and [Defendant] provided code compliant responses to all of the discovery responses at issue. . .” (Id., 4:15-17, 7:11-13, 10:6-8, 12:26-13:1, 15:7-9, 17:22-24, 20:9-11, 23:2-4, 25:23-25, 28:15-17, 31:7-9, 33:15-17, 36:7-9 and 38:26-39:1).

With respect to Requests Nos. 1-5, 9-11, 13 and 14, Defendant represents that it responded that “documents in the requested category in [its] possession, custody, or control and to which no objection was being made would be included in the production, that “[t]his is compliant with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.220” and that “[n]o further response is warranted.” (Id., 5:1-3, 7:24-26, 10:18-20, 13:12-14, 15:20-22, 26:9-11, 29:1-3, 31:20-22, 36:20-22 and 39:12-14). The court disagrees.

As Plaintiff points out, where Defendant agrees to comply with a Request, Defendant thereafter fails to state that it will produce all documents and things in the demanded category that are in its possession, custody or control but instead uses words to the effect that it will produce documents and things to which it has no objection. (See, as an example, the phrasing used in response to Request No. 1 [“Subject to and without waiving these objections, the requested production will be allowed in whole and all documents in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of AHM, and to which no objection is being made, will be included in the production, including the following documents. . .”].) Said responses do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2031.220 and 2031.240; as such, further responses are warranted.

With respect to Requests Nos. 6-8 and 12, Defendant represents that it “provided code compliant responses indicating it was unable to comply with each request and that pursuant to a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, [it] had no responsive documents,” and that “[n]o further response[s] [are] warranted.” (Opp. Sep. Statement, 18:7-11, 20:20-24, 23:14-18 and 33:27-34:4). Defendant’s Response to No. 6, however, does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.230, in that Defendant fails to “specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party,” as well as “the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” A further response is warranted.

With that said, the court believes that Defendant’s responses to Requests Nos. 7 and 8 (i.e., substantively confirming, inter alia, that “no responsive documents have ever existed”) are compliant and that no further responses to same are warranted. Likewise, Defendant’s response to Request No. 12 (i.e., substantively stating that it “has no documents responsive to this request, is unaware of the existence of any responsive documents or whether any responsive documents have ever existed”) is compliant; as such, no further response is warranted.

Request No. 15 seeks documents relating to Defendants rules, policies or procedures since 2017 concerning the issuance of refunds to buyers or providing replacement vehicles to buyers in the State of California under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Request No. 16 seeks documents relating to Defendant’s Call Center Policies and Procedures for escalating customer complaints relating to any defects present in their vehicle.

Request No. 17 seeks documents which relate to Defendant’s Call Center Policies and Procedures for creating a Service Activity in response to customer complaints relating to any defects present in their vehicle.

Request No. 18 seeks all documents relating to Defendant’s policies and procedures for determining whether a vehicle should be repurchased or replaced under the Song Beverly Act.

Request No. 19 seeks documents relating to any flow charts used by Defendant for the purpose of escalating customer complaints.

Request No. 20 seeks documents relating to any flow charts used by Defendant for the purpose of evaluating whether a vehicle qualifies for repurchase or replacement under the Song-Beverly Act.

Request No. 21 seeks documents evidencing Defendant’s training materials related to Defendant’s policy regarding how to calculate a repurchase.

Request No. 22 seeks documents relating to any policies or procedures followed by Defendant’s Customer Relation Center to advise customers to deliver their vehicles to Defendant’s authorized repair facilities for further diagnosis of repair instead of offering a repurchase or replacement of the vehicle under the Song-Beverly Act.

Request No. 23 seeks documents relating to Defendant’s Warranty Policy and Procedures Manuals provided to Defendant’s authorized repair facilities with respect to how to determine whether repairs should be covered under warranty from 2017 to the present.

Request No. 24 seeks documents relating to Defendant’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to Defendant’s authorized repair facilities with respect to whether repairs should be covered under warranty as “goodwill” from 2017 to the present.

Request No. 25 seeks documents relating to Defendant’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to Defendant’s authorized repair facilities with respect to repeated repair visits for similar complaints by the consumer from 2017 to the present.

Request No. 26 seeks documents relating to Defendant’s Warranty Policy and Procedures Manual provided to Defendant’s authorized repair facilities on what type of repairs require approval by Defendant in order to cover the repair under warranty from 2017 to the present.

Request No. 27 seeks documents relating to Defendant’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to Defendant’s authorized repair facilities on then length for test drives on certain customer complaints to be covered under warranty from 2017 to the present.

Request No. 28 seeks documents Defendant’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to Defendant’s authorized repair facilities on what type of repairs will not be reimbursed by Defendant as warranty repairs from 2017 to the present.

Request No. 29 seeks all documents relating to Defendant’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to Defendant’s authorized repair facilities on how to handle customer concerns that are not duplicated at the time of the repair visit from 2017 to the present.

Again, although Defendant raised various objections to the aforesaid requests, Defendant has not met its burden of justifying any of them. (See above).

With respect to Requests Nos. 15, 17-22, 24, 26, 27 and 29, Defendant represents that it “provided code compliant responses indicating it was unable to comply with each request and that pursuant to a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, [it] had no responsive documents,” and that “[n]o further response[s] [are] warranted.” (Opp. Sep. Statement, 42:15-17, 48:4-6, 50:27-51:2, 54:18-20, 57:6-8, 59:26-60:1, 63:1-3, 65:13-15, 70:12-14, 72:22-24 and 77:20-22). The court believes that Defendant’s responses to Requests Nos. 15, 17-22, 24, 26, 27 and 29 (i.e., substantively confirming, inter alia, that it has no responsive documents and “no such documents have ever existed”) are compliant with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.230 and that no further responses to same are warranted.

With respect to Requests Nos. 16, 23, 25 and 28, Defendant represents that it “provided code compliant responses indicating it was unable to comply with each request and that pursuant to a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, [it] had no responsive documents and that no responsive documents have ever existed,” that, notwithstanding same, “[i]n the interest of cooperation, [it] agreed to produce confidential and proprietary documents which were not otherwise responsive to Plaintiff’s request as worded” and that “[n]o further response[s] are warranted.” (Opp. Sep. Statement, 45-12:18, 63:1-7, 67:27-6 and 75:9-15). Again, the court believes that Defendant’s responses to Requests Nos. 16, 23, 25 and 28 (i.e., substantively confirming, inter alia, that it has no responsive documents and no responsive documents “has/have ever existed”) are compliant with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.230 and that no further responses to same are warranted.

Request No. 30 seeks 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[2] to complaints made by Plaintiff with respect to the subject vehicle in other 2022 Honda Accord vehicles.

Request No. 31 seeks documents relating to any Field Service Action issued, or in the process of being issued, in response to complaints experienced by Plaintiff as described in Defendant’s warranty history/summary and within the line items of the repair orders created at Defendant’s authorized repair facility.

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 Plaintiff” 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 Plaintiff’s failure to define “complaints made by Plaintiff” renders the request vague and ambiguous. No further response is warranted.

With respect to Request No. 31, Defendant represents that it “provided [a] code compliant response[] indicating it was unable to comply with each request and that pursuant to a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, [it] had no responsive documents,” and that “[n]o further response is warranted.” (Opp. Sep. Statement, 86:15-19). The court believes that Defendant’s response to Requests No. 31 (i.e., substantively confirming, inter alia, that it has no responsive documents and “no responsive documents have ever existed in [its] possession, custody, or control”) is compliant with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.230 and that no further response to same is warranted.

The motion, then, is granted in part (i.e., as to Requests Nos. 1-6, 9-11, 13 and 14) and denied in part (i.e., as to Requests Nos. 7, 8, 12 and 15-31). Defendant is to provide further, Code-compliant responses within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

[1] Grigoryan represents that this letter is attached as Exhibit 7 to his declaration; however, no such letter is attached.

[2] “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.” Plaintiff 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.]”