TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 3

Date: 4/26/2024

Case No: 23 GDCV00127 Trial Date: February 3, 2025 

Case Name: Richey v. FCA US, LLC, et al. 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO 

DOCUMENT DEMANDS

Moving Party: Plaintiff Behzad Richey   

Responding Party: Defendant FCA US LLC   

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 24-28, 30 and 33-37 

CRC separate statement, etc.:   Yes 

DECLARATION SUPPORTING MOTION:

Reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally: Yes

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Behzad Richey alleges that in May of 2020, plaintiff purchased a 2019 Alfa Romeo Stelvio new motor vehicle manufactured or distributed by defendant FCA US LLC, and plaintiff received express warranties that the vehicle would be free from defects in materials, nonconformities or workmanship during the applicable warranty period, and to the extent the vehicle had defects, FCA would repair the defects.  

In July of 2020, plaintiff returned the vehicle to defendants for repairs under the warranties because the vehicle exhibited defects and nonconformities relating to the start stop system and the Engine Control Module.  Subsequently, the vehicle exhibited further and additional defects and nonconformities in the same components or systems, and plaintiff alleges that on each occasion that the vehicle exhibited defects, plaintiff notified manufacturer FCA, through defendant Alfa Romeo and Fiat of Glendale (Alfa Romeo) or one of FCA’s other authorized service and repair facilities within a reasonable time after plaintiff’s discovery thereof.  The complaint alleges that defendants have failed to make the vehicle conform to the applicable warranties, despite a reasonable number of attempts to do so. 

 The complaint alleges three causes of action under the Song-Beverly Act, including for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violation of Section 1793.2, and also alleges a cause of action for negligent repair against defendant Alfa Romeo, alleging that Alfa Romeo breached its duty to use ordinary care and skill in storage, preparation and repair of the vehicle in accordance with industry standards. 

ANALYSIS:

This matter is subject to the Standing Order Re Discovery (Song-Beverly Litigation) (Order) applicable to Song-Beverly Litigation, now posted and available on the Los Angeles Superior Court website in connection with this Department, Glendale Courthouse, Department D.   An Order was originally signed by the court on January 24, 2023, and revised and again signed on January 11, 2024. 

Pursuant to the current version of the Order, “any formal discovery propounded and currently pending or outstanding by a party in this matter prior to the date of this CMC Order is stayed pending further order of the Court.”

[Order section (1)(a)]. 

The Order sets forth the following provision concerning discovery in Song-Beverly matters which appear to address the discovery disputes raised by the current motion and opposition.  

“Production of Documents:  Within 60 days of service of this Order both plaintiff and defendant shall provide copies of the following documents, which are in their respective possession, custody and/or control, to the opposing side(s):

a. Purchase or lease contracts concerning the subject vehicle, including any associated documents reflecting OEM or aftermarket equipment installed at the dealership, ELWs or service contracts, and any other writings signed by the plaintiff at the point of sale.

b. Work orders, repair orders, and invoices (including accounting and warranty versions) for any maintenance, service and repair activity concerning the subject vehicles.

c. Rental car or loaner agreements regarding alternative transportation provided during service or repair visits concerning the subject vehicle.

d. Records of communications with dealer personnel, and/or factory representatives and defendant’s call center or customer assistance personnel concerning the subject vehicle.

e. Warrant claims submitted to and/or approved by defendant concerning the subject vehicle.

f. Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual or similar policies or claim-handling procedures published by Defendant from the date the subject vehicle was purchased or leased to the date the lawsuit was filed.

g. Defendant’s written statements of policy and/or procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase or replacement pursuant to “Lemon Law” claims, including ones brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date the subject vehicle was purchased or leased to the date the lawsuit was filed.

h. A list of or compilation of customer complaints in defendant’s electronically stored information database that are substantially similar to the alleged defects claimed by plaintiff, in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle.  A substantially similar customer complaint would be the same nature of reported symptom, malfunction, dashboard indicator light, or other manifestation of a repair problem as the description listed in any work order or repair order for the subject vehicle, other than routine or scheduled maintenance items.  The list provided by defendant may be in the chart or spreadsheet format, and shall include the VIN, date of repair visit, dealership or other reporting location, and text of the other customers’ reported complaint, but shall not include the other customers’ names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, or other personal identifying information.

i. Technical Service Bulletins and Recall Notices for vehicle purchased or leased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle.

j. Copies of any repair instruction, bulletin, or other diagnostic/repair procedure identified in any of the repair order/invoice records for the subject vehicle.

k. Receipts or other written evidence supporting any incidental or consequential damages claimed by plaintiff.

If a party believes any of this information should be subject to a protective order, that party shall serve and file a proposed protective order within 5 days of this Order and the parties shall meet and confer as to agreeable language for the same.  The default will be the standard Protective Order provided by the LASC in its website.

The information may be provided to the opposing party in electronic form as a PDF at the option of the producing party.

Plaintiff and defendant shall serve verification with the documents they produce.

Any additional requests for documents may only be propounded by stipulation and/or court order (via motion upon showing of good cause).

[Order section (2)(a)-(k)].

The parties are also directed to the Notice to All Counsel Re: Lemon Law Cases for Department D, entitled Customary Rulings Re Document Requests (Song Beverly Litigation) (Notice).  That Notice provides:

“When the court is faced with a discovery dispute in a Song-Beverly case, the court will usually order that the plaintiff and defendant provide copies of the following documents, which are in their respective possession, custody and/or control, to the opposing side: 

1. Defendant shall produce the “Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual” published by Defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the period of [date of purchase] to present. 

2. Defendant shall produce any internal analysis or investigation regarding defects alleged in plaintiff's complaint in vehicles for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. This includes Recall Notices and Technical Service Bulletins.  Defendant is not required to do a search of emails. 

3. Defendant shall produce any customer complaints relating to defects alleged in plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. 

4. Defendant shall produce all documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for the period of [date of purchase] to present. 

5. Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

6. Communications with dealer, factory representative and/or call center concerning the subject vehicle.

7. Warranty claims submitted to and/or approved by Defendant concerning the subject vehicle. 

8. Purchase and/or lease contract concerning the subject vehicle. 

9. Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle. 

10. Any documents supporting plaintiff’s claim for incidental and/or consequential damages.”

With respect to the evident dispute concerning the entry of a protective order, the parties are directed to the Order language concerning entering into a protective order set forth at subdivision (2)(k) of the Order with respect to production of documents:

“If a party believes any of this information should be subject to a protective order, that party shall serve and file a proposed protective order within 5 days of this Order and the parties shall meet and confer as to agreeable language for the same.  The default will be the standard Protective Order provided by the LASC in its website.”

“Where this Stipulated Confidentiality Order Form is used, then any proposed stipulated confidentiality order submitted to the Court MUST be accompanied by a “redlined” or “compare” version of this Form, so that the Court may readily see ALL MODIFICATIONS that were made to this Form.  This procedure is intended to save you and the Court time and promote faster processing of these proposed orders.”  

The entry of a court order approving an appropriate protective order will make it unnecessary for the parties to assert any objections that the discovery seeks confidential, proprietary or trade secret information.  

RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE/STAYED pursuant to this Standing Order Re Discovery (Song-Beverly Litigation), signed and entered by the Court on January 24, 2023 as revised, signed and entered on January 11, 2024. 

The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith concerning compliance with the Order, taking into consideration this Court’s Notice to All Counsel Re: Lemon Law Cases for Department D, Customary Rulings Re Document Requests (Song Beverly Litigation), and to serve any further discovery, and engage in any further discovery proceedings or motions in compliance with the Order and Notice, as well as with this minute order. 

If a party believes any of the information requested should be subject to a protective order, that party shall serve and file a proposed redlined or compare version of the protective order within 5 days of this Order and the parties shall meet and confer as to agreeable language for the same.  The default will be the standard Protective Order provided by the LASC on its website.

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE 

AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances.  However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. 

If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.