Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 19STCV44765, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV44765    Hearing Date: February 8, 2023    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 February 8, 2023 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  19STCV44765

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        John Pham v. Hyundai Moto Company, et al

¿¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff, John Pham

¿¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendants, Hyundai Motor America and Hyundai Motor Company

¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                        August 9, 2023

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three

¿

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) CONTINUED, Pending several elements of further meeting and conferring the Court intends to order after hearing oral argument         

¿¿ 

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A.    Factual

Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Production, Set Three. This discovery motion consisted of one request, Request No. 111, which requested:

Please IDENTIFY and produce all DOCUMENTS submitted by YOU (Hyundai Motor America/HMA) to the National Highway Transportation [sic] Safety Administration (NHTSA) in response to NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation Information Request dated April 25, 2002 to Brian Latouf, Hyundai Motor America, North America Chief Safety Officer, in connection with Engineering Analysis (EA21-003).

Plaintiff is seeking to obtain a collection of documents, allegedly already gathered by the defendant and submitted to NHTSA concerning a claimed common design and manufacturing defect in not only the subject 2016 Sonata, but also other allegedly similar vehicles with similar engines. Plaintiff claims that the essence of the Defendant’s refusal to produce the entire collection is that it and its lawyers believe materials concerning other similar vehicles that are not part of the exact same recall as the subject model vehicle are not “relevant” to this case because those vehicle engines allegedly do not have the exact same components as the subject model (and the other models with different engines that are part of recall 20V-746.)

Defendant asserts that this request violates a May 23, 2022, Stipulation and Order on Plaintiff’s previous motion to compel a further response to plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set Two. The stipulation included Defendant agreeing to provide certain information regarding NHTSA Campaign ID 20V-746 (Recall 198) because that is the recall applicable to the subject vehicle, not because those vehicles are substantially similar or have the same engine components as the subject vehicle. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff incorrectly contends tat Recall 198 vehicles all include the same connecting rods, bearing, and crankshaft as the subject vehicle. Defendant argues they do not. Defendant notes that Judge Hill ratified the parties’ stipulation the same day that it was filed, and the parties have thereby been ordered that for discovery requests seeking documents concerning all vehicles “equipped with GDI engines” the scope of discovery would be limited to vehicles subject to NHTSA Campaign ID 20V-746 (Recall 198) and vehicles equipped with the same bearings, crankshaft, and connecting rods (by part number) as the subject vehicle.

The Court continues the hearing on the motion for approximately 30 days and during that hiatus the Court orders as follows:

1.      The parties are ordered to meet and confer concerning an amendment or revision to the parties’ 2022 discovery scope Stipulation submitted to and signed by Judge Hill.  The amendment or revision should include expanding the protection of Personal Identifying Information (“PII”) that might be contained on a document being produced in discovery or shown to experts/consultants, as well as the models and model years covered by the stipulation;

2.      Assuming the parties are unable to resolve the amendment or revision issues themselves, the Court will entertain a supplemental brief from each side not to exceed 5 pages and filed and served no less than 7 days before the continued hearing.  The supplemental brief shall reference the pages and lines of the stipulation sought to be amended and the justification or lack of justification for the same.  The Court will then consider issuing an amended discovery scope order whether the parties have stipulated to it or not;

3.      The Court will entertain oral argument at the February 8 hearing from Defendant as to why the Court’s suggested resolution of much of this dispute with a PII-redacted spreadsheet was not acceptable to the Defendant, and oral argument from Plaintiff as to why it should not provide evidence such as an expert or detailed counsel declaration as to the nature of similarities between the models at issue in this discovery request which are not covered by current stipulation, so the Court can make a threshold determination as to the scope of discovery claimed by the defense to be not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.