TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 6

Date: 9/13/2024

Case No: 23 GDCV00805 Trial Date: August 18, 2025 

Case Name: Meksian v. Maserati North America, Inc., et al. 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO

DOCUMENT DEMANDS

Moving Party: Plaintiff Peter Meksian   

Responding Party: Defendant Maserati North America, Inc.    

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 1 through 101  

MONETARY SANCTION:

None sought 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Peter Meksian alleges that in February of 2022 plaintiff leased a 2022 Maserati MC20, for which defendant Maserati North America, Inc. issued a written warranty, in which defendant warranted and agreed 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 engine, emission, electrical and suspension system defects. 

  Plaintiff alleges that the defects were present or developed during the express warranty period, and substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the vehicle.  Plaintiff alleges that plaintiff delivered the vehicle to an authorized Maserati North America, Inc. repair facility, but defendant was unable to conform plaintiff’s vehicle to warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts. 

Plaintiff alleges that notwithstanding plaintiff’s entitlement, defendant Maserati North America, Inc. has failed to either promptly replace the vehicle or to promptly make restitution.   

The complaint also alleges that plaintiff delivered the vehicle to defendant Rusnak Maserati for repairs on numerous occasions, and that defendant Rusnak Maserati breached its duty to plaintiff to use ordinary care and skill by failing to properly store, prepare, and repair the vehicle in accordance with industry standards. 

The complaint alleges three causes of action for Violation of the Song Beverly Act, for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violation of section 1793.2, as well as a fourth cause of action for negligent repair. 

ANALYSIS:

As pointed out in the opposition, 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 appears to address the discovery disputes raised by the current motion.  

“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.”

Specifically, with respect to a statement of compliance, CCP section 2031.220 requires:

“A statement that a party to whom an inspection demand has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, and related activity demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being make will be included in the production.”

With respect to a statement of inability to comply, CCP section 2031.230 requires:

“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonably inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand.   This statement shall also 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.   The statement shall set forth 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.”

To the extent responses are made which object to documents concerning an identified defect, in this case, the definitions provided in the discovery requests as well as in the Order and Notice above should resolve any concerns. 

It does not appear from the file that the parties have yet entered into a protective order.  The court notes that if either party requires a protective order, the procedures are addressed in the Order, at section 2, subdivision (k), above.   

 

Any further objections that responsive documents are being withheld based on attorney-client or work product privilege must be specifically asserted and accompanied by an appropriate privilege log.  See CCP §2031.240 (b) and (c) (objection shall “[i]dentify with particularity any document…or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made,” and “[s]et forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection,” and, if based on privilege or work product, “shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.”); see also Catalina Island Yacht Club v Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130 (“In general, … a privilege log typically should provide the identity and capacity of all individuals who authored, sent, or received each allegedly privileged document, the document's date, a brief description of the document and its contents or subject matter sufficient to determine whether the privilege applies, and the precise privilege or protection asserted.”)

RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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. 

Any further objections that responsive documents are being withheld based on attorney-client or work product privilege must be fully Code-compliant and accompanied by a Code-compliant privilege log. 

If a party believes any of the information requested 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 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.