Judge Richard S. Whitney, Case Number: 37-2023-00017558-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2023-00017558-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 30, 2024

05/31/2024 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 37-2023-00017558-CU-BC-CTL GIESEN VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

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

Defendant AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.'s ('Defendant') opposes Plaintiff JOHN GIESEN's ('Plaintiff') motion. This motion was continued by stipulation. After the stipulation and meet and confer efforts, Defendant served further responses to Plaintiff's requests on May 7, 2024, and produce documents on May 16, 2024. Plaintiff sought further responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set One, ('RFPs') Nos. 1-3, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40, 41, 46, 47, 49, 50, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 74, 79, 80, 83, 84, 89, 91, 92, 111, 112, 113, 114, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, and 133. As Defendant has served further responses to some of Plaintiff's requests, the motion is partially moot. However, Plaintiff asserts many of the supplemental responses remain deficient. Specifically, Defendant continues to object to RPFs Nos. 12, 13, 18-23, 28-29, 32-33, 36-37 40-41, 46-47, 49-50, 63-68, 79-80, 83-84, 111-114, and 127-133 because they purportedly involve issues, components, allegations, and circumstances not at issue here, as well as different consumers.

Except as to claims of privilege or attorney work product, Plaintiff has the burden to show good cause by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Once good cause is shown, the burden shifts to Defendant to justify its objections. (Id.) The Court finds, as discussed further below, Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated good cause because the requests, even those related to other vehicles (provided they are limited in scope), seek information that 'might reasonably assist [Plaintiff] in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.' (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) '[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) ''Relevant evidence' means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.' (Evid. Code, § 210.) '[D]oubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.' (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790 [Citation omitted].) Defendant takes issue with requests that pertain to the 'infotainment system' and the 'TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S)' because Plaintiff did not present the vehicle for repairs in regard to such concerns, citing Silvio v. Ford Motor Co. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1205. In Silvio, the court stated: Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3105442 63 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: GIESEN VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO [IMAGED] 37-2023-00017558-CU-BC-CTL The statute requires the manufacturer to afford the specified remedies of restitution or replacement if that manufacturer is unable to repair the vehicle 'after a reasonable number of attempts.' 'Attempts' is plural. The statute does not require the manufacturer to make restitution or replace a vehicle if it has had only one opportunity to repair that vehicle.

(Id. at 1208.) The court did not conclude the plural attempts must be as to the exact same component part. Rather, manufactures must be given the opportunity to repair the 'vehicle' more than once.

Defendant's purposed interpretation would allow a manufacture to have an infinite number of attempts to repair the 'vehicle' as long as each attempt was as to a different component part. This interpretation runs counter to the purpose of the Song Beverly Act, which 'is a remedial statute designed to protect consumers who have purchased products covered by an express warranty.' (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 798.) '[T]he Act is manifestly a remedial measure, intended for the protection of the consumer; it should be given a construction calculated to bring its benefits into action.' (Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 184.) Defendant appears to assume consumers would have to present the vehicle with the exact same complaints on multiple occasions. First, it is a factual question as to whether the complaints are the same and whether they were presented on multiple occasions. The Court will not resolve a factual issue on a discovery motion. Second, Defendant's position would allow for 'MacGyver' fixes that could swap one problem for another. (Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, 342, 342-346.) The Court rejects Defendant's position.

Defendant's concerns would have been better received had Defendant demonstrated that the burden to produce responsive documents would be undue given the facts of this specific case. But, as discussed below, Defendant did not present evidence of the quantum of work involved to produce responsive documents nor that such work would cause an undue burden.

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 year, make, and model or with the exact same vehicle component part suffering from the same defect are 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.) Santana supports the conclusion documents pertaining to other vehicles with similar defects are relevant as the court found internal emails between engineers about an attempted fix for a defect in similar vehicles (not just the plaintiff's vehicle) supported the jury verdict. (Id. at 347.) Evidence of similar issues in other vehicles of the same make, model, and year 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 its statutory duty potentially subjects it to civil penalties. (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd.

(c).) If Defendant's failure to 'replace or refund 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 Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3105442 63 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: GIESEN VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO [IMAGED] 37-2023-00017558-CU-BC-CTL 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 exact same defect is relevant to show Defendant's awareness of the prevalence of such defect and its reasonableness in refusing to repurchase the vehicle considering such awareness. The above analysis applies to recalls, technical service bulletins, and the like. While the circumstances as to each repurchase decision may be different, this does not render the information irrelevant because a trier of fact may find that Defendant should have considered information as to other vehicles.

Notwithstanding the above analysis, the requests that pertain to other vehicles are not particularized as they relate to other 'HONDA VEHICLES' that 'are equipped with the infotainment system and 10-speed transmission like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.' The requests are not limited to the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff's vehicle. Further, the term 'like' is ambiguous. Responsive documents could include or exclude vehicles depending on how the term 'like' is interpreted.

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).) 'An 'objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required.'' (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549 [Citation omitted].) Defendant has not demonstrated the quantum of work involved to produce responsive documents to demonstrate the burden is undue.

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 should have provided a declaration or other evidence to support a quantification of the burden that would be involved in responding to the requests.

Defendant is ordered to produce further responses in accordance with the above analysis. The requests pertaining to other vehicles are hereby narrowed to vehicles that are the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff's vehicle. The parties are ordered to further meet and confer as to how the term 'like' should be understood in relation to the requests pertaining to infotainment system and transmission defects.

The meet and confer should occur such that Defendant can produce further responses and responsive documents within sixty (60) calendar days. No sanctions are awarded.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3105442 63