Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV19879, Date: 2025-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV19879    Hearing Date: May 5, 2025    Dept: 34

Plaintiffs Samuel Tulia and Diana Tulia’s Motion To Compel Further Responses To Special Interrogatories, Nos. 14 and 53, as to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is GRANTED.

Defendant shall provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories within twenty (20) days of the issuance of this court order.

Background

            On August 7, 2024, Plaintiffs Samuel Tulia and Diana Tulia (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging causes of action for:

1.     Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability under The Song-Beverly Act; and

2.     Breach of Express Warranty under The Song-Beverly Act.

On September 16, 2024, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint.

On February 19, 2025, and March 24, 2025, the court held two Informal Discovery Conferences.

            On April 8, 2025, Plaintiffs filed this Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories. On April 22, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition. On April 25, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a reply.

Legal Standard

On receipt of a response to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and/or demand requests, the propounding and/or demanding party “may move for an order compelling further response” if: (1) the response is evasive or incomplete; (2) the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) the objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 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, 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.)

Discussion

            Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories, Nos. 14 and 53, served on September 17, 2024. (Motion, at p. 6.)

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

            IDENTIFY all PERSONS who performed warranty repairs upon the SUBJECT VEHICLE

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

            VWGoA objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the phrase “performed warranty repairs” is vague and ambiguous. VWGoA also objects to this interrogatory on grounds that it fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060(f). VWGoA further objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. VWGoA objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and vague as to time.

            Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, please see the repair documents produced by VWGoA (Exhibit C) in response to Plaintiffs’ request for production of documents, which contains the repair orders for the vehicle. The repair orders identify the technicians at the independently owned and operated service facilities by employee number. Their last known business address is provided on the repair orders. Beyond this, VWGoA has insufficient personal knowledge to respond to this interrogatory, having conducted a good faith, reasonable inquiry.

            Plaintiffs contend that this SROG seeks the name and contact information of all persons that performed repairs to Plaintiffs’ vehicle under warranty. (Separate Statement, at p. 2.) Plaintiffs argue that such information is relevant as they relate to percipient witnesses involving this breach of warranty case. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs also argue that such request is not burdensome for Defendant as it can ascertain the names of the servicing technicians through their assigned unique identification numbers. (Id., at p. 3.) Lastly, Plaintiffs contend that pointing to documents produced to ascertain the requested information is insufficient. (Ibid.)

            In opposition, Defendant argues that it was not improper to direct Plaintiffs to ascertain the information requested from the documents produced as those contain the dealership employee numbers for the technicians that performed services and repairs on Plaintiffs’ vehicle, along with the name and employee number of the dealership’s service advisors who communicated with Plaintiffs. (Id., at pp. 3-4.) Defendant also argues that the burden and expense of listing out each technician number, as stated in the repair orders, is the same for Plaintiffs as for Defendant. (Ibid.)

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 53:

            Please state the total number of days the SUBJECT VEHICLE was out of service for warranty repairs.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 53:

            VWGoA objects to this interrogatory on grounds that it is overbroad, vague, and ambiguous. VWGoA objects to this interrogatory on grounds that it seeks the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client and/or attorney work product privileges. VWGoA objects that this request seeks the premature disclosure of expert information contrary to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210 et.seq.

            Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, please see the warranty history (Exhibit B) and dealer repair orders (Exhibit C), produced by VWGoA in response to Plaintiffs’ request for production of documents.

            Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s response is incomplete as Defendant knows how many days Plaintiffs’ vehicle was down for warranty repairs because Defendant paid for those repairs. (Separate Statement, at p. 6.) Plaintiffs also argue that there is good reason for asking for the information sought as the total number of warranty "down days" is essential to determining if the lemon law presumption under Song-Beverly applies. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs also contend that the number of days down for warranty repairs is utilized as a factor in manufacturers' evaluation of whether a vehicle qualifies for repurchase. (Ibid.)

            In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ request is improper as the term “out of service” is vague, overbroad, and ambiguous and the request lacks specificity as to the time frame, scope of repairs, or whether the inquiry includes periods unrelated to warranty-covered events. Moreover, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs already possess the information sought, both through documents and testimony.

            The court finds that Plaintiffs’ SROGs Nos. 14 and 53 request information that is relevant to this matter and are sufficiently narrow in scope. Plaintiffs’ SROGs seek information that is readily available to Defendant. It is not overly burdensome to request that Defendant identifies the information requested as Defendant concedes to know the location of that information within its documents.

The court grants Plaintiffs’ SROGs Motion as to Nos. 14 and 53.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs Samuel Tulia and Diana Tulia’s Motion To Compel Further Responses To Special Interrogatories, Nos. 14 and 53, as to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is GRANTED.

Defendant shall provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories within twenty (20) days of the issuance of this court order.