Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 23GDCV00439, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ralph C. Hofer, Case: 23GDCV00439, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV00439 Hearing Date: December 15, 2023 Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 5

Date: 12/15/2023

Case No: 23 GDCV00439 Trial Date: April 21, 2025

Case Name: Armenta v. Kia America, Inc.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

TO INTERROGATORIES

Moving Party: Plaintiff Ramon F. Zavala Armenta

Responding Party: Defendant Kia America, Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Verified Further Responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 44, 45, 50, 51, 56 and 57

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Ramon F. Zavala Armenta alleges that in January of 2022, plaintiff purchased a 2022 Kia Telluride vehicle manufactured by defendant Kia America, Inc. (Kia) and in connection with the purchase of the vehicle plaintiff received an express written warranty in which defendant undertook to maintain the utility or performance of the vehicle or to provide compensation if there was a failure in utility or performance for a specified period of time.

After plaintiff took possession of the vehicle and during the warranty period, the vehicle contained or developed defects which substantially impair the use, safety, and/or value of the vehicle, including defective electrical system, air conditioning system, body system, interiors, and lighting system.

Plaintiff alleges that plaintiff provided defendants and its representatives the opportunity to service or repair the vehicle, but that defendants and its representatives were unable or failed to service or repair the vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts, to plaintiff’s damage.

The complaint alleges causes of action for Violation of Subdivision (d) of Civil Code Section 1793.2, Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civil Code Section 1793.2 Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2, Breach of Express Written Warranty, and Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability.

ANALYSIS:

It is not clear why this motion is brought as the parties both indicate in their papers that they are aware that this matter is 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 which appear to address the discovery issues raised by the current motion.

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)].

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 44, 45, 50, 51, 56 and 57. There is no submission of a stipulation of court order which shows that these special interrogatories, discovery propounded beyond the 35 special interrogatory limit, were permitted in advance to be propounded.

The court file shows that the parties have filed a Stipulation and Protective Order—Confidential Designation Only, which was signed and filed as the order of the court on August 8, 2023. That stipulation does not include any stipulation concerning the propounding of special interrogatories beyond the limit imposed by the Order.

Plaintiff accordingly may not compel further responses to those interrogatories without first obtaining a stipulation or court order based on good cause permitting the propounding of such additional discovery. The court also notes that the Order was based on the reasonable determination by the court that the propounding of 35 special interrogatories is generally sufficient in cases subject to the Order, and that a review of the separate statements submitted shows that that the subject interrogatories were not included in the first 35 special interrogatories propounded, and impermissibly exceed the limit, and also that each of those six interrogatories include at least five, and in many cases six, subparts, so are impermissibly compound, and practically speaking further exceed the 35 special interrogatory limit by at least an additional 30 discovery requests.

The motion accordingly is denied without prejudice, and the parties are ordered to engage in good faith meet and confer concerning the dispute in light of the court’s Order. If the parties are unable to stipulate, and if necessary, after good faith meet and confer, motions for discovery may be scheduled, with new papers filed, and appropriate separate statements, and which motion or motions fully comply with the court’s Order, as well as this minute order. Separate statements should also set forth verbatim the relevant language of the Order where applicable. The parties are also ordered to engage in all further discovery and discovery motions in accordance with the Order.

The court also points out to the parties that the Order does permit specified discovery in connection with production of documents, which specifications should assist the parties in reaching an acceptable agreement concerning plaintiff’s discovery needs, and the court’s likely rulings concerning the breadth of discovery. Specifically, with respect to Requests for Production of Documents, the Order provides:

“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)].

RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Kia America LLC’s Verified Further Responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 44, 45, 50, 51, 56 and 57 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.

Monetary sanctions requested in the moving papers are DENIED.

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.