Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 24NNCV04333, Date: 2025-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Sandra Ramirez and Hector Rojo allege that in August of 2023 plaintiffs entered into a warranty contract with American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) regarding a 2023 Honda Civic which plaintiffs purchased.

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

Plaintiffs allege that notwithstanding plaintiffs’ entitlement to a replacement vehicle and/or restitution under the Act, Honda has failed to promptly make restitution in accordance with the Song-Beverly Act.

Plaintiffs seek an order compelling defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) to produce its Person Most Knowledgeable to appear and testify at a deposition and produce documents requested in the deposition notice.

The moving papers show that plaintiffs served defendant with a notice of deposition on November 5, 2024, defendant Honda served objections, indicating no witness would be produced on the deposition date, notwithstanding an earlier meet and confer agreement, and that defendant did not appear at the deposition. [Johnson Decl., paras. 4-8, Exs. A-C]. Plaintiffs indicate that despite multiple requests for an available date for the PMQ deposition, defendant did not provide any dates in response. [Johnson Decl., para. 9, Ex. B].

“(a) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party..., without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

“If the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event the deponent shall designate and produce at deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent.”

The moving papers sufficiently establish that defendant, a party to the action, and its person most qualified, were served with a deposition notice, and failed to appear for examination as noticed. Defendant has failed to file timely opposition to this motion, so has failed to justify any objection that the deposition date was unilaterally set, and has failed to explain the failure to respond to meet and confer efforts to provide a mutually convenient date. Plaintiffs are accordingly entitled to an order compelling defendant’s attendance and testimony.

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

The memorandum argues that there is good cause for production of the requested documents because they are relevant to proving plaintiff’s claims under the Song-Beverly Act, specifically, to the criteria that defendant uses to determine whether a vehicle is a “lemon” and whether defendant, in dealing with plaintiff, acted in good faith and in a manner that comports with the lemon law or is instead sought to avoid repurchasing the vehicle, and subject to civil penalty. The requests for the most part seek documents pertaining to the subject vehicle, and other documents which appear pertinent to the lawsuit.

However, 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 and entered by the Court on January 24, 2023 and was revised, signed and entered on January 11, 2024.

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.”

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. With respect to depositions, the Order provides:

4. Deposition: Within the time limits allowed by law. Defendant may depose plaintiff, and plaintiff may depose the person most knowledgeable (PMK) as to up to 5 categories of information, plus a deposition of the PMK as to why the subject vehicle was not repurchased, in addition to depositions of any experts identified by the parties, after a formal demand and exchange of expert witness information, per CCP § 2034. Parties shall meet and confer as to whether there is a need to take any additional depositions. Any additional depositions may only be noticed and taken by stipulation and/or court order (via motion upon showing of good cause).

If a deponent resides out of state, the deposition may be taken by video conference or telephone. The parties will not be required to travel to California, and the attorneys will not be required to travel out of state.”

“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.

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.

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 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.

The court notes that the Order provides for PMQ depositions for up to 5 categories of information, plus a deposition of the PMQ as to why the subject vehicle was not repurchased. The Notice of Deposition seeks deposition of 26 categories. Plaintiffs are ordered to specify the five categories to be pursued, and the deposition is ordered to be conducted as to those categories, plus why the subject vehicle was not repurchased. Plaintiffs have otherwise not complied with the requirement of the Order that any additional depositions may only be noticed and taken by stipulation or court order, via a motion upon a showing of good cause.

With respect to the documents requested, the production is to be made and the deposition conducted in accordance with the Order and Notice. If there is some further dispute concerning the production of documents or the conduct of the deposition, the parties must comply with the Order and Notice, and meet and confer in good faith concerning any outstanding discovery in light of the Order and Notice, and, if necessary, pursue a further motion which must be accompanied by a separate statement reflecting the then current status of any discovery disputes, including in that separate statement as to each request and response any applicable language of the Order and Notice.

The court notes that 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.

“If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

CCP § 2023.010 (d) provides that misuse of the discovery process includes, “Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” CCP § 2023.030(a) authorizes the imposition of monetary sanctions against a party and its attorney for misuse of the discovery process.

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Defendant has failed to file timely opposition so has failed to show how defendant was substantially justified in failing to appear at the deposition, or in failing to provide a date for the PMQ deposition after many months, or in failing to meet and confer to comply with the court’s Order. This motion was evidently necessary to obtain defendant’s compliance with its discovery obligations under the terms of the Order and under the Discovery Act.

The sanctions sought by plaintiffs are $2,310.00. These appear reasonable, and there is no opposition challenging the reasonableness of the amount sought. The sanctions are awarded in full as requested.

Plaintiffs have filed a separate motion seeking further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Defendant has filed a responsive separate statement, arguing that further responses should not be compelled.

Again, 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 motion is denied without prejudice subject to compliance with the court’s standing order on discovery.

As set forth above, 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 the opposition papers.

l. 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.

q. 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.

r. 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.

s. 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.

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.

The parties are ordered to engage in good faith meet and confer concerning the outstanding discovery in light of the Order and Notice, and, if necessary, reschedule the motion and file new papers and an updated Code-compliant separate statement reflecting the then current status of the discovery dispute, including in that separate statement as to each request and response any applicable language of the Order and/or Notice.

The court notes with respect to this particular dispute that the Court will expect Code compliant responses, and unnecessary objections will be overruled. For example, if appropriate statements of compliance or inability to comply are served which fully comply with CCP sections 2031.220 and 2031.230, there would be no need to assert several of the objections here.

“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.”

“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 court also notes, that, as discussed above, 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 further objections that the discovery seeks confidential, proprietary, private, or trade secret information.

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is ordered to designate and produce witness(es) to appear for deposition and to give testimony on a mutually convenient date and time as to the matters requested in the Notice of Deposition of Defendant’s Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian(s) of Record served on November 5, 2024, no later than April 25, 2025, limited to the following five designated categories of information, plus deposition of the PMQ as to why the subject vehicle was not repurchased.

Good cause appearing, the deponent(s) is (are) also ordered to produce for inspection at the deposition any and all materials described in the subject notice which are consistent with this Court’s 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, as well as materials which are consistent with this Court’s Notice to All Counsel Re: Lemon Law Cases for Department D, Customary Rulings Re Document Requests (Song Beverly Litigation).

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 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.

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $2,310.00 (6 hours @ $375 per hour) [6 hours requested] plus filing fee in the sum of $60.00 [Amount Requested $2,310.00], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiffs Sandra Ramirez and Hector Rojo, and against defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and defendant’s attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. CCP §§ 2025.450 (g)(1), 2023.010 (d) and 2023.030 (a).

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Defendant and Request for Sanctions—Firsst Set of Requests for Production of Documents 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.

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 in its website.

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. Department D is now requiring either live or VIDEO appearances, not audio appearances. Please note that in the case of video appearances, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.