Judge Richard S. Whitney, Case Number: 37-2023-00018551-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2023-00018551-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 16, 2024

05/17/2024 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 37-2023-00018551-CU-BC-CTL GRANER VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS FROM DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA is DENIED.

Defendant Hyundai Motor America ('Defendant') opposes Plaintiffs MARINA GRANER and JUERGEN GRANER's ('Plaintiffs') motion to compel further responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production, Set One ('RFPs'), but Defendant subsequently served supplemental responses, except as to Nos. 76, 77, 82 and 83. Therefore, the motion is moot except as to RFPs Nos. 76, 77, 82 and 83. However, the Court will address some of the issues raised in the objections by Defendant in the supplemental responses in the hopes that it will eliminate the need for further motion work in the future.

Defendant argues Plaintiffs' meet and confer efforts were insufficient. The Court finds the meet and confer efforts were sufficient under the circumstances. (See Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) Defendant asserts the discovery requests seek information that pertains to claims that are barred by a class action settlement. Defendant provides evidence that Plaintiffs did not opt out of the settlement.

However, Defendant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the same information is not relevant to claims in this action and/or that issue preclusion applies to prevent the discovery in this action. Further, Plaintiffs provide evidence that they opted out of the class action. The Court need not decide the conflict in evidence at this time.

Except as to claims of privilege or attorney work product, Plaintiffs have 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, Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated good cause because the requests, even those related to other vehicles, seek information that 'might reasonably assist [Plaintiffs] 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 Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3067708 53 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: GRANER VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA [IMAGED] 37-2023-00018551-CU-BC-CTL permitting discovery.' (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790 [Citation omitted].) The requests that pertain to other vehicles are sufficiently particularized as they relate to similar defects in the same make, model, and year as the Plaintiffs' vehicle.

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 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.) The case Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334 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 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.

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 provides the declaration of John Gramata, the Director of Customer Care for Defendant, who Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3067708 53 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: GRANER VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA [IMAGED] 37-2023-00018551-CU-BC-CTL explains the process that would be required to provide responsive documents to Plaintiffs' requests. Mr.

Gramata declares it would take hundreds of hours for Defendant's employees to evaluate records to determine what documents are responsive. (Decl. Gramata, ¶¶ 2, 19, 22-37.) 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. Defendant supports that such is the case in this matter. Thus, the Court merely needs some showing of burden that is undue, in light of the amount in controversy, to conclude that the discovery should be denied. Defendant's presentation of the declaration of John Gramata meets that burden. Defendant has demonstrated that the amount of the burden outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (See Decl. Gramata generally.) Therefore, the motion is denied as to RFPs Nos. 76, 77, 82 and 83. Further, the Court warns Plaintiffs that the Court is unlikely to compel further responses as to the supplement responses given the declaration of Mr. Gramata.

For the reasons discussed above, the motion is denied. No sanctions are awarded.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3067708 53