Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 19STCV44765, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV44765    Hearing Date: March 7, 2023    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 March 7, 2023 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  19STCV44765

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        John Pham v. Hyundai Motor 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) Granted, as detailed below.  Responsive documents and a verified further response to be provided by March 31, 2023

¿¿ 

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, already gathered by the defendant and submitted to NHTSA concerning a common design and manufacturing defect in the subject 2016 Sonata, and other 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 that 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.

B.     Procedural

On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further discovery responses. On January 26, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition. On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply brief. On March 2, 2023, Defendants filed a supplemental brief in support of its opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three.

II. ANALYSIS¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A.    Legal Standard

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) 

B.     Discussion

In its supplemental brief in support of opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production, Set Three, HMA notes that on February 8, 2023, the Court provided the parties with a compromise to resolve the issues presented in Plaintiff’s motion. The Court suggested that HMA product to Plaintiff, the following documents that were produced to NHTSA in response to EA21-003:

1.      Documents concerning incidents that involved personal injury with personally identifying information (“PII”) redacted (2/8/23 hrg., p. 29:25-30:4, Ex. A.)

2.      Documents concerning incidents that involved property damage that were reported to HMA before Plaintiff’s incident, with PII redacted. (Id.)

Defendant notes that during the February 8, 2023 hearing, counsel for HMA requested confirmation from Plaintiff’s counsel that an agreement to produce documents corresponding to the Court’s criteria, with PII redacted, would resolve the discover dispute. However, Defendant asserts that shortly after the hearing, Plaintiff wrote to HMA presenting a demand that far exceeded the parties’ discussion and the Court’s guidance during the hearing (Ex. B at p. 13.) Defendant contends that it responded by asking Plaintiff to provide the parameters used to arrive at the 42 incidents referred to during the hearing. (Id. at p. 12-13). Plaintiff allegedly responded that “You can sort your own spread sheet.”2 (Ex. C). Defendant asserts that it did, and found there to be only six (6) incidents involving personal injury claims and only nine (9) additional unique incidents involving property damage claims for which HMA received notice prior to plaintiff’s incident. (See Ex. B at p. 6-11).

Defendant specifies that it does not agree that claims involving dissimilar engines and vehicles are relevant or properly discoverable. However, Defendant notes that it still offered to produce documents concerning the nine (9) personal injury and six (6) unique property damage claims for which it received notice prior to plaintiff’s incident. Defendant further asserts it even agreed to compromise on several of plaintiff’s additional demands, not discussed at the hearing, if it would resolve the dispute.

Because the Court did not make an order at the prior hearing but merely made several suggestions to the parties as to how the discovery dispute might be resolved, neither side is bound by the Court’s “suggestions.”  There was no mutual agreement to resolve the discovery dispute pursuant to those suggestions so the Court will now make an order that resolves the dispute, with clarity as to how the Court is resolving competing contentions of the parties.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1.      The Motion to Compel further production of responses to Request for Production Set 3 is granted as specified below;

2.      HMA is ordered to produce the constellation of non-privileged document in HMA’s possession, custody, or control that have been generally characterized as the contents of Hyundai’s “Claim Files” that HMA submitted to NHTA in response to the ODI’s Information Request dated April 25, 2002 to Brian Latouf, at HMA in connection with Engineering Analysis (EA21-003) that constitute lawsuits, claim letters, photographs or inspection reports, related to or arising from any property damage, personal injury or death claims that were alleged by the claimant or litigant to have resulted from a non-collision engine fire in a Hyundai model vehicle equipped with the same bearings, crankshaft, and connecting rods (by parts number) as the 2016-2019 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid, regardless of whether the documents concern a Hyundai model vehicle that . . .

a.       was or was not a hybrid,

b.      was or was not included in Recall 20V-746,

c.       was or was not manufactured in Ulsan, Korea,

d.      does or does not have a 2.0 Liter Nu series GDI engine,

e.       is or is not a Sonata, and

f.        regardless of whether the vehicle’s incident occurred before or after the date of the Plaintiff’s subject incident.

3.      The Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”) of a Hyundai customer (e.g., the vehicle’s owner, buyer or lessee or the injured family member of the same) shall be redacted if the customer has requested confidentiality or if her/his/their identities have not been publicly disclosed previously by HMA or NHTSA. 

4.      None of the numbers or letter characters of the vehicles’ VINs shall be redacted in the documents being produced pursuant to this Order.

5.      The Court will reserve ruling until the motion in limine phase on the admissibility at trial of any of the documents it is hereby ordering HMA to produce pursuant to this discovery order.  The Court is not currently making any ruling as to whether a Hyundai model vehicle other than a model year 2016 Hyundai Sonata 2.0 Liter GDI engine vehicle is or is not substantially similar to Plaintiff’s subject vehicle.

6.      The grounds for issuance of this Order include the Court’s interpretation of paragraph (c) of the parties’ May 23, 2022 Stipulation which was approved by Judge Hill, a stipulation the Court is enforcing here.

7.      HMA shall provide a verified further response to Request for Production of Documents Set 3 compliant with this Order by March 31, 2023.