TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 5

Date: 9/1/2023

Case No: 23  GDCV00364 Trial Date: April 7, 2025   

Case Name: Lane v. Ford Motor Company 

MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS (4 Motions)

Moving Party: Plaintiff Vivian Cheryl Lane  

Responding Party: Defendant Ford Motor Company  (Notices of Non-Opposition filed)  

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Orders relieving plaintiff from waiver of plaintiff’s right to object to discovery requests for failure to serve timely responses to discovery. 

MONETARY SANCTION:

None sought 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Vivian Cheryl Lane alleges that in May of 2022 plaintiff purchased a 2022 Ford Transit, for which defendant Ford Motor Company issued various warranties, pursuant to which defendant undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the vehicle or provide compensation if there was a failure in such utility or performance. 

Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle was delivered to plaintiff with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformity to warranty, including emission, electrical, structural, engine and transmission defects.  

  Plaintiff alleges that the defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the express warranty period, and substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the vehicle.  Plaintiff delivered the vehicle to manufacturer’s authorized repair facility for repair of the nonconformities, and defendant has been unable to conform plaintiff’s vehicle to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of repair attempts. 

The complaint alleges three causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty, and Section 1793.2. 

The file shows that on August 16, 2023, the court signed and filed a Stipulation and Protective Order—Confidential Designation Only. 

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Vivian Cheryl Lane brings these four motions, seeking orders relieving plaintiff from plaintiff’s waiver of objections to written discovery served by defendant in this action.    

CCP section 2030.290 provides:

“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).  The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Section 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. 

(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.”

A similar provision applies to document demands under CCP § 2031.300 and requests for admissions under CCP § 2033.280.

The declaration submitted with the motions indicates that written discovery was served on plaintiff’s counsel by electronic service, that counsel’s firm’s calendaring department is then responsible for calendaring dates and deadlines pursuant to the firm’s calendaring system policies and procedures, but due to a calendaring error, defendant’s discovery requests were not tasked, so no responses were drafted.  [Nickfardjam Decl., paras. 7,8].   

In any case, defendant has filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to each of the four motions, indicating that the Notice is submitted pursuant to Judge Hofer’s Case Management Order, which stayed all discovery at the time of the filing of the motions, rendering the motions and any subsequent oppositions moot. 

This matter is in fact subject to the Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (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.   The Order was signed by the court on January 24, 2023. 

Pursuant to that 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 provisions concerning discovery in Song-Beverly matters.  

With respect to Interrogatories, the Order provides:

“Interrogatories:  Within the time limits allowed by law, both plaintiff and defendant may propound one set of Judicial Council Form Interrogatories and one set of maximum of 35 special interrogatories.  Any additional special interrogatories may only be propounded by stipulation and/or court order (via motion upon showing of good cause).”

[Order section (3)].

“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. Warranty 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 motions now pending accordingly are denied without prejudice until the parties have had the opportunity to comply with the Order, and to meet and confer in good faith about further discovery disputes, if any.  

Based on defendant’s Non-Oppositions, the court will assume defendant is conceding that defendant will not be seeking responses to the subject discovery without objection based on any failure by plaintiff to timely respond to discovery while discovery was subject to a stay.  The parties could stipulate to no waiver of plaintiff’s right to object to discovery due to defendant’s late response to the discovery served.  

The court notes that on any further motions made pursuant to the Order, the court will expect that copies of any discovery at issue be submitted with the parties’ papers.  The parties should note that discovery beyond that authorized by the Order may only be propounded by stipulation or court order obtained by a noticed motion based on a showing of good cause.  [Order section (2)(k)].

RULING:

[Notices of Non-Opposition filed]

Plaintiff Vivian Cheryl Lane’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections—Form Interrogatories—is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to this Court’s Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (Song-Beverly Litigation), signed and entered by the Court on January 24, 2023. 

Plaintiff Vivian Cheryl Lane’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections—Special Interrogatories—is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to this Court’s Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (Song-Beverly Litigation), signed and entered by the Court on January 24, 2023. 

Plaintiff Vivian Cheryl Lane’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections Requests for Admissions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to this Court’s Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (Song-Beverly Litigation), signed and entered by the Court on January 24, 2023. 

Plaintiff Vivian Cheryl Lane’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections—Requests for Production—is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to this Court’s Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (Song-Beverly Litigation), signed and entered by the Court on January 24, 2023. 

The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith concerning compliance with the Order, and to serve any further discovery, and engage in any further discovery proceedings or motions in compliance with the Order and this minute order. 

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

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

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