Judge: Ralph C. Hofer, Case: 23GDCV02384, Date: 2024-07-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV02384    Hearing Date: July 5, 2024    Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar:         5                                             

Date:               7/5/2024                                 

Case No:         23 GDCV02384         Trial Date:       None Set  

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

MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

(3 Motions)

Moving Party:             Plaintiffs Laura P. Lopez and Maria D. Perez    

Responding Party:       Defendant FCA US LLC   

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One

Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

Order deeming the truth of matters admitted in Requests for Admissions

MONETARY SANCTION:

None sought

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiffs Laura P. Lopez and Maria D. Perez allege that in January of 2020 plaintiffs leased a 2020 Ram 1500, in connection with which defendant FCA US LLC issued a written warranty, in which defendant FCA US LLC 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.

Plaintiffs allege that the vehicle was delivered to plaintiffs with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities, including engine, transmission, electrical and emission system defects. 

  Plaintiffs allege that the defects manifested themselves in the vehicle within the applicable warranty period, and substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the vehicle.  Plaintiffs allege that plaintiffs delivered the vehicle to an authorized repair facility to repair the nonconformities, but defendant has been unable to conform the vehicle to warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts.

Plaintiffs allege that despite their entitlement, defendant FCA US LLC has failed to either promptly replace the vehicle or to promptly make restitution.  

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 Beverly Act section 1793.2.  

ANALYSIS:

The parties are evidently unaware 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.   

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 motions.

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)].

            The special interrogatories submitted with the moving papers far exceed the 35 special interrogatory limit.

            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)].

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.”

            The motions concerning responses to interrogatories and responses to requests for production of documents accordingly are denied without prejudice until the parties have had the opportunity to comply with the Order.  The parties are ordered to engage in good faith meet and confer concerning the outstanding discovery in light of the Order, and, if necessary, reschedule the motions and file new papers and supporting documentation, including separate statements reflecting the then current status of the discovery disputes.  Separate statements should also set forth verbatim the relevant language of the Order and Notice where applicable. 

            The court notes with respect to these particular disputes that the court expects Code compliant responses, and unnecessary objections will be overruled.  

Specifically, with respect to a statement of compliance with document production requests, 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.”

The Order does not provide for the propounding of Requests for Admissions, but permits discovery by means of Production of Documents, Interrogatories, Depositions and Vehicle Inspection, as limited above.  The  moving papers provide no stipulation or court order permitting the propounding of this form of discovery in this matter, as required by the Order, at section (1)(c) (providing that the parties may “stipulate, in writing, to modify” the orders, and that a party may “seek to modify and/or delete any of these orders, via noticed motion, upon good cause.”)   

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.   The entry of such a protective order should make it unnecessary for the parties to assert any objections that the discovery seeks confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information. 

RULING:

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses, Without Objections, to Plaintiff’s Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to this Court’s Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (Song-Beverly Litigation) (Order) 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, and to serve any further discovery, and engage in any further discovery proceedings or motions in compliance with the Order, as well as with this minute order.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses, Without Objections, to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to this Court’s Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (Song-Beverly Litigation) (Order) 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, also 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) (Notice), 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.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Deeming the Truth of Matters Admitted in Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions (Set One) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to this Court’s Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (Song-Beverly Litigation) (Order) signed and entered by the Court on January 24, 2023 as revised, signed and entered on January 11, 2024.

The Order does not encompass the propounding of Requests for Admissions, and the moving papers do not submit a written stipulation or court order permitting such discovery, as required under section (1)(c) of the Order.

If a party believes any of the information requested in discovery should be subject to a protective order, that party shall serve and file a proposed protective order within 5 days of this minute 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.