Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 24NNCV05538, Date: 2025-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ralph C. Hofer, Case: 24NNCV05538, Date: 2025-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV05538 Hearing Date: April 25, 2025 Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 8

Date: 04/25/2025

Case No: 24 NNCV05538 Trial Date: None Set

Case Name: Trejo-Ibarra, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Margie Trejo-Ibarra and Jose Ibarra

Responding Party: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (No Opposition)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Order compelling production of documents consistent with defendant’s responses to requests for production of documents

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Margie Trejo-Ibarra and Jose Ibarra allege that in July of 2024 plaintiffs entered into a warranty contract with American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) regarding a 2024 Honda Accord Hybrid 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.

The complaint alleges two causes of action, for Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Express Warranty and Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Implied Warranty.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs bring this motion under CCP section 2031.320 (a):

“(a) If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031,240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.”

Plaintiffs in support of this motion must show that responding party failed to permit the inspection or copying in accordance with responding party’s statement of compliance.

Plaintiffs in the motion broadly state that requests for production were served, that defendant served responses to those requests, and that Honda “agreed to produce certain documents in response.” Plaintiffs indicates that the response did not include any corresponding document production and defendant has not produced the requested documents. [Nandivada Decl., paras. 5, 6].

Plaintiffs have simply attached the responses served by defendant, and referred to that exhibit as evidence for the argument that Honda agreed to produce certain documents in response. There is no indication in the moving papers concerning as to which of the 49 Requests for Production of Documents defendant in response agreed to produce documents pursuant to a statement of compliance. There has been no separate statement filed in support of this motion.

The court, to confirm that there was an agreement by defendant to produce certain documents pursuant to statements of compliance, has briefly reviewed the responses submitted with the motion, and notes that as to most of the requests, there is no statement of compliance. A brief review shows such statements are made only in Responses to Requests Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 30, 34, 37, 38, 41.

The court does not appreciate having had to cull through nearly 50 discovery responses with no guidance from the moving parties as to which responses are the subject of this motion, and would ordinarily be inclined to deny the motion outright on the ground the moving papers do not sufficiently establish that there were specific statements of compliance within the lengthy discovery which plaintiffs seek to enforce. In the absence of a designation in the moving papers of which Responses are at issue, this also appears to be a circumstance under which common sense would dictate that a separate statement should have been submitted.

However, the motion is not opposed, and it appears that there was some agreement on the part of defendant to produce specific documents which have not been produced. The motion is granted only as to the above listed Responses.

Plaintiff is also reminded that as to any further discovery disputes, this matter is subject to the 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 with respect to the production of documents.

“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)].

Plaintiff is 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.”

In connection with all further discovery, the parties are ordered to engage in good faith meet and confer in light of the Order and Notice, and, to appropriately seek stipulations or court orders for discovery outside the provisions of the Order and Notice. In connection with any further discovery motion, the parties must submit Code-compliant separate statements reflecting the 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.

Sanctions

This leaves the issue of monetary sanctions sought by plaintiffs for the expense of bringing this motion.

With respect to a motion to compel compliance with a statement of compliance, CCP § 2031.320 (b) provides that the court:

“shall impose a monetary sanction...against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990, 2nd Dist.) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.

Here, the motion is granted in part, and there has been no timely opposition, so defendant has failed to show substantial justification or injustice. Sanctions are awarded.

The sanctions sought are $1,460.00. These appear high for a motion of this nature, particularly one which did not sufficiently specify the relief sought. The motion also seeks 1.5 hours at $400 per hour to review opposition and prepare a reply, when there is no opposition, so the reply should be brief, and one hour to attend the hearing, when the hearing may be attended through remote video appearance. The sanctions awarded will be adjusted accordingly as follows: 2 hours attorney time at $400.00 per hour for a total of 800.00

RULING:

[No Opposition]

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Discovery Responses Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.320(a) is GRANTED in part, pursuant to CCP § 2031.320 (a).

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is ordered to produce documents or permit the promised inspection and copying according to the statements of compliance set forth in Defendant American Motor Co., Inc.’s Response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Requests Nos. 4, 5, 7-15, 19, 30, 34, 37, 38, and 41.

Production or Inspection is to occur within five court days at a site designated by plaintiffs.

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 $800.00 (2 hours @ $400 per hour) [3.5 hours requested] [Amount Requested $1,460.00] in addition to the costs of the filing fee of $60, which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiffs Margie Trejo-Ibarra and Jose Ibarra and against defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and defendant’s attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. CCP § 2031.320 (b).

Counsel for moving party is ordered to prepare an order for sanctions and submit it on eCourt by noon today in accordance with this order.

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE

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. 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.

Website by Triangulus