Judge Richard S. Whitney, Case 37-2021-00040012-CU-BC-CTL 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2021-00040012-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 02, 2023

11/03/2023 10:30:00 AM C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2021-00040012-CU-BC-CTL OLMOS VS FCA US LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO is GRANTED, in part, and MOOT, in part.

Plaintiff CLAUDIA OLMOS ('Plaintiff') seeks to compel responses to Requests for Production ('RFPs') Nos. 75-76, 78-80, 83-84, 86-88, 91-92, 94-96, 99-100, 102-104 from Defendant FCA US LLC ('Defendant'). Defendant served supplemental responses as to RFPs Nos. 76, 84, 92 and 100. The motion is moot as to these requests. The Court declines to rule on Plaintiff's concerns with the supplemental responses but warns Defendant that sanctions may be significant in the future if Defendant fails to supplement without properly justified objections. As to the remaining requests at issue, the Court provides the following analysis that guided its conclusions.

Documents pertaining to technical service bulletins, recalls and similar defects in other vehicles of the same make, model, and year could tend to prove Defendant was aware of the alleged defects in the vehicle, but refused to repurchase the vehicle notwithstanding its knowledge that it could not repair the vehicle. Both Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967 and Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138 impliedly recognize that information regarding other vehicles of the same make and model or with the same vehicle component with the same defect can be relevant and use of same is not prejudicial. The court in Doppes held terminating sanctions should have been awarded by the trial court where the defendant abused the discovery process by, inter alia, failing to produce, for a person-most-knowledgeable deposition, 'customer complaints concerning the rust inhibitor used on the 2002 Bentley Arnage.' (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at 972 and 993.) This request applied to a component in all vehicles of a certain make and model. For there to have been a discovery abuse as to such request, the information must have been discoverable. In Donlen the court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a manufacturer's motion in limine to 'exclude evidence of other vehicles and of the nonwarranty repair.' (Donlen, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at 154.) The court found testimony from an expert regarding issues in transmissions in other F–450 truck was not prejudicial. (Id.) Evidence of similar issues in other vehicles of the same make, model, and year, including as to recalls and/or technical service bulletins, could tend to show, at a minimum, Defendant likely had knowledge of the issues. Defendant has 'an affirmative duty to replace a vehicle or make restitution' if it is 'unable to repair the new vehicle after a reasonable number of repair attempts.' (Lukather v. General Motors, LLC (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1050.) A manufacturer's failure to comply with is statutory duty potentially subjects it to civil penalties. (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (c).) If Defendant's failure to 'replace or refund Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2982768 61 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: OLMOS VS FCA US LLC [IMAGED] 37-2021-00040012-CU-BC-CTL was the result of a good faith and reasonable belief the facts imposing the statutory obligation were not present,' then it is not considered a willful violation and it is not liable for civil penalties. (Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 185.) Evidence of other vehicles of the same make, model, and year having the same defect is relevant to show Defendant's awareness of a defect and its reasonableness in refusing to repurchase the vehicle in light of such awareness.

Further, the requests appear to be calculated to lead to evidence that could refute Defendant's affirmative defense that the defects were the result of misuse and/or abuse. If other owners of similar vehicles experienced the same problems notwithstanding a lack of abuse or misuse, it could tend to prove the problem in Plaintiff's vehicle was not caused by abuse or misuse.

The Court has discretion to weigh the burden of compliance (such as cost, time, expense and disruption of normal business) against the likelihood of producing helpful information to avoid duplicative production and to narrow demands. (Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1497.) 'The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020(a).) Further, the Court 'shall limit the frequency or extent of discovery of electronically stored information, even from a source that is reasonably accessible' if the 'likely burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit, taking into account the amount in controversy, the resources of the parties, the importance of the issues in the litigation, and the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060(f).) Defendant has the burden to show its objections are justified. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(d).) The Court is cognizant of the burden lemon law cases are placing on California courts. The Court is aware that the cost of litigating a lemon law case can and often does exceed the total recovery a plaintiff could hope for, excluding attorney's fees. Thus, the Court would only require some showing of burden that is undue, in light of the amount in controversy, to conclude that the discovery should be denied.

Defendant failed to provide a declaration or other evidence to support a quantification of the burden that would be involved in responding to the requests. The Court finds that the temporal and geographical limitations offered by Plaintiff are sufficient to lessen the burden.

Defendant has failed to sufficiently justify it objections. The motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to RFPs Nos. 75, 78-80, 83, 86-88, 91, 94-96, 99, and 102-104. The motion is moot as to RFPs Nos. 76, 84, 92 and 100. No sanctions are awarded. The Court encourages the parties to sincerely meet and confer as to the supplemental responses considering the above analysis.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2982768 61