Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2021-01207203, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Miguel Suarez (“Plaintiff”) moves to strike Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) objections to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and compel Defendant’s further responses to the same.

A demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to a demand for inspection if a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, or an objection is without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).)  The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause to justify the discovery sought and be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310(b)(1)(2).)

The Court finds that Plaintiff satisfied the meet and confer requirement before filing this Motion.  (See Declaration of Allen Amarkarian (“Amarkarian Decl.”), ¶¶ 22-25.) 

As an initial matter, Defendant argues the instant Motion should be denied or held in abeyance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4, in light of its Motion to Compel Arbitration, which was filed on July 21, 2022. 

Section 1281.4 provides, in relevant part: “If an application has been made to a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, for an order to arbitrate a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State and such application is undetermined, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until the application for an order to arbitrate is determined and, if arbitration of such controversy is ordered, until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.”

Defendant cites to Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 188.  There, the petitioner was being sued in state court by an employee.  The petitioner filed a petition to compel arbitration in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and subsequently filed a motion to stay the state court action pending resolution of its federal petition.  (Id., at p. 190.)  The appellate court held the above-quoted paragraph of section 1281.4 made it mandatory that the trial court stay the state court action while the application to arbitrate was pending in federal court.  (Id., at p. 92.) 

Defendant asserts it has satisfied the requirements of section 1281.4 in seeking a stay of this action: it has filed an application for an order to arbitrate and a motion to stay.  In support, Defendant points to its Motion filed on July 21, 2022.  While that Motion does request a stay of proceedings while Defendant’s application to arbitrate is pending, that Motion is not set to be heard until October 20, 2022.  Defendant has not sought relief to advance the hearing on that Motion to obtain the relief requested therein sooner, nor has it filed a separate motion to stay as the petitioner in Twentieth Century.  Thus, the Court rejects Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s instant Motion must be denied or held in abeyance.

Request for Production No. 17

This Request seeks all warranty claims policy and procedure manuals from 2016 to the present.  Along with objecting to the extent the term “your” is overly broad and the Request seeks to expand Defendant’s discovery obligations beyond those required by statute, Defendant responded by stating it will conduct a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and produce all documents within its possession, custody, and control, including a copy of the Nissan Warranty Information Booklet for the Subject Vehicle, the Supplement to the Nissan Warranty Information Booklet for the Subject Vehicle, and the Owner's Manual for the Subject Vehicle which were provided to Plaintiff at the time Plaintiff purchased the Subject Vehicle, and the Department of Consumer Affairs publication entitled "Lemon-Aid for Consumers.”

Plaintiff argues that the documents sought by this Request are relevant and can support the allegation that Defendant willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act. 

Defendant’s response states it will comply with this Request after conducting a diligent search and reasonable inquiry.  Thus, there is no apparent dispute, regarding scope or otherwise, over what is requested.  It seems the issue is that, though Defendant has stated it will comply with the Request, it has not yet done so on the ground that discovery should be stayed due to its pending Motion to Compel Arbitration.  As discussed above, the Court finds a stay is not warranted at this time.  Thus, the Motion to Compel as to Request No. 17 is GRANTED.

Request for Production Nos. 18, 21-23, 26

Request No. 18 seeks all documents which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to Defendant’s rules, policies, or procedures since 2016 concerning the issuance of refunds to buyers or providing replacement vehicles to buyers in the State of California under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. 

Request No. 21 seeks all documents issued by Defendant or on Defendant’s behalf which evidence or describe policies, procedures, and/or instructions since 2016 that Defendant’s employees and agents should follow when evaluating a customer request for their money back or a replacement of a motor vehicle manufactured or distributed by Defendant.

Request No. 22 seeks all documents evidencing and/or describing Defendant’s training materials related to Defendant’s policy regarding how to calculate a repurchase.

Request No. 23 seeks all documents referencing, evidencing, and/or relating to Defendant’s policies, procedures, or guidelines for determining whether a vehicle is eligible for a vehicle repurchase.

Request No. 26 seeks all documents issued by Defendant or on Defendant’s behalf which evidence or describe policies, procedures and/or instructions since 2016 which Defendant’s authorized repair facilities should follow regarding customer requests for a refund of the price paid for a vehicle or a replacement vehicle.

Defendant’s response to each of these Requests is identical to that provided under Request No. 17.  For the same reasons, the Motion to Compel as to Request Nos. 18, 21-23, and 26 is GRANTED.

Request for Production No. 30

This Request seeks all documents any consultant provided Defendant from 2016 to present that are related in any way to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  “Consultant” is defined as any non-legal professional who is not an employee of Defendant and who provided advice or recommendations.  Defendant objected to the Request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and seeking information not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

Plaintiff contends the requested documents are relevant and pertain to Defendant’s warranty and repurchase policies, procedures, and practices and can support the allegation that Defendant willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act. 

Aside from these vague contentions, Plaintiff offers no explanation in support of his arguments.  He does not state how documents provided to Defendant by any consultant might help prove his claims here, or how those documents pertain to Defendant’s warranty and repurchase policies.  Thus, Plaintiff has failed to provide specific facts showing good cause to justify this Request.  As discussed above, Defendant has been ordered to produce its relevant warranty and repurchase policies and procedures.  This Request does not appear to seek any further relevant documents regarding those warranty and repurchase policies and procedures.  Thus, the Motion is DENIED as to Request No. 30.

Request for Production No. 31

This Request seeks all documents evidencing any policies, procedures, or guidelines provided by Defendant to any agency regarding what constitutes a substantial nonconformity under the Song-Beverly Act from 2010 to present.  Defendant’s objections to this Request are identical to its objections to Request No. 30.  As with Request No. 30, Defendant has been ordered to produce its relevant warranty and repurchase policies and procedures pursuant to Request Nos. 17-18, 21-23, and 26.  This Request does not appear to seek any further relevant documents regarding those warranty and repurchase policies and procedures.  Thus, the Motion is DENIED as to Request No. 31.

Request for Production No. 33

This Request seeks all documents which evidence or describe the numbers of owners of the 2019 Nissan Titan vehicles who have complained of any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the vehicle to Defendant or Defendant’s authorized repair facility for repair.  Defendant objected to the Request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and seeking information not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Defendant further objected that the Request fails to identify any “nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the Subject Vehicle.”

Plaintiff contends the requested documents can support the claim for civil penalties by showing Defendant was aware of a prevalent defect that could not be repaired.  Plaintiff further argues that Defendant’s refusal to produce documents that relate to other vehicles is improper and contrary to the weight of authority. 

The request is limited to the make, model, and year of Plaintiff’s vehicle.  The requested documents are relevant to show whether Defendant had knowledge of a prevailing defect which affected vehicles of the same make, model, and year of Plaintiff’s vehicle, which goes to the heart of Plaintiff’s claims here.  The Court finds Defendant’s objection that the Request does not specify the nonconformities at issue lacks merit.  Through the pleadings and its course of dealing with Plaintiff, Defendant should be aware of the nonconformities at issue here.  Thus, the Motion is GRANTED as to Request No. 33.

Request for Production No. 37

This Request seeks all documents which evidence or describe sales brochures, literature or any other promotional materials provided or distributed by Defendant regarding vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle.  Defendant objected to the Request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and seeking information not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiff asserts, as with his arguments for other Requests at issue, the requested documents can support the allegation that Defendant willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act.  Plaintiff provides no explanation as to how sales brochures or other promotional material may help prove his claims against Defendant.  Thus, Plaintiff has failed to provide specific facts showing good cause to justify this Request.  Thus, the Motion is DENIED as to Request No. 37.

All further responses must be served no later than October 27, 2022.

Plaintiff to give notice.