Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01495, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22TRCV01495 Hearing Date: August 4, 2023 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling¿¿
¿¿¿
HEARING DATE: August 4, 2023¿¿
¿¿¿
CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV01495
¿¿¿
CASE NAME: Maria
Christina Angulo-Alcaraz v. Ford Motor Company, et al.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Maria Cristina Angulo-Alcaraz
¿¿¿
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant,
Ford Motor Company.
¿¿¿
TRIAL DATE: August 5, 2024
¿¿¿
MOTION:¿ (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One.
(2)
Plaintiff’s Request for Monetary Sanctions
(3)
Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order
Tentative Rulings: (1) Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Requests for Production, Set One is GRANTED, subject to protective
order, and subject to relevant time period.
(2)
Plaintiff’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.
(3)
Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED but not all of the proposed modifications
to the Model Order
¿¿
¿¿
I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿
¿¿¿
A. Factual¿¿¿
¿¿¿
On
December 15, 2022, Plaintiff, Maria Cristina Angulo-Alcaraz (“Plaintiff”) filed
a Complaint against Defendant, Ford Motor Company, and DOES 1 through 10. The
Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly
Act - Breach of Express Warranty; and (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act –
Breach of Implied Warranty
On
March 1, 2023, Plaintiff notes it sent Defendant her first set of Requests for
Production of Documents to better evaluate her claims and adequately prepare
for settlement or trial (Lopez Decl., ¶ 3, Exhibit A.) Plaintiff notes that the
Requests for Production at issue for this motion include requests seeking
Ford’s policies and procedures related to its compliance with the Song-Beverly
Act. Plaintiff notes that on April 4, 2023, Ford served its responses to
Plaintiff’s Requests. Plaintiff also notes that Ford also served its proposed
protective order. Lastly, plaintiff notes that on April 17, 2023, Ford served
verifications.
On
May 1, 2023, Plaintiff notes she initiated the meet and confer process by
sending a letter to Ford that specified the deficiencies in Ford’s responses
and also addressed the issues with Ford’s proposed protective order. (Lopez
Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. C.) Plaintiff asserts that her counsel and Defendant’s counsel
have met and conferred on the issue of a protective order on numerous occasions
but have been unable to reach an agreement (Lopez Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff notes
that the same day, the parties agreed to extend the motion to compel deadline
to June 23, 2023.
Plaintiff
further notes that on June 9, 2023, Ford provided responses indicating that it
would not be supplementing its responses. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 7; Ex. E.) Plaintiff
asserts that Ford also indicated that it would be filing a motion for
protective order. Based on this, Plaintiff is now bring this motion to compel
further responses.
B. Procedural¿¿¿
¿¿
On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff
filed this Motion to Compel Further Responses. On July 20, 2023, Defendant
filed an opposition brief. On July 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.
This Court also notes that
on June 29, 2023, Ford filed a Motion for Entry of a Protective Order. On July
27, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On July 28, 2023, Ford filed a reply
brief
¿¿
¿II. MEET AND CONFER ¿¿¿
¿¿
The
Court finds that the parties have meet and conferred in good faith.
¿III. ANALYSIS¿¿
¿¿
“Unless
otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any
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 of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) For
discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably
assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating
settlement thereof.” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9
Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)
A
motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of
documents (“RFP”) may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of
compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive, or incomplete claims of inability to
comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2031.310(c).) A motion to compel further production must set
forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the
inspection demand. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) In Digital Music
News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court
defined “good cause” as a showing that there “a disputed fact that is of
consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove
or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or
disprove the fact.” If the moving party has shown good cause for the
requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the
objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)
"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." (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.020(a).) Generally, objections
on the ground of burden require the objecting party to produce evidence of (a)
the propounding party's subjective intent to create burden or (b) the amount of
time and effort it would take to respond. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of
Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56
Cal.2d 407, 417.) However, no such evidence is necessary where discovery is
obviously overbroad on its face. (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998)
67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)
B.
Discussion
Here,
Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to an order compelling further, Code-compliant
responses because she has satisfied the pre-filing requirements for bringing
this motion and seeks information that is relevant and material to her claims.
Plaintiff contends that there is good cause for granting her motion because the
information sought is relevant. Here, she notes that the RFPs in issue for this
motion include requests seeking Ford’s policies and procedures related to its
compliance with the Song-Beverly Act. Further, Plaintiff notes that the
documents evidencing Ford’s policies, procedures, and instructions are relevant
because they would show whether they are meant to hinder consumers from seeing
their statutory remedies, whether they comport with Ford’s duties under the
Song-Beverly Act including whether they seek to provide an inferior remedy than
Ford is required to provide, what criteria Ford uses for determining whether a vehicle
qualifies for repurchase or replacement, or whether Ford has ever enacted any
policies or procedures for dealing with its obligations under the Act. Plaintiff
contends that this information would tend to prove whether Defendant has
committed a willful violation and is therefore, relevant and material.
The
Court does not disagree that these requests are relevant. However, such
documents may be subject to a protective order.
Request
No. 16 requests Ford to produce all of their warranty claim policy and
procedure manual(s) from 2022 to present. The Court agrees that such documentation
would be squarely relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. However, the Court also
believes that such information may be subject to a protective order as such
information may contain trade secrets. In opposition, Ford notes that it has
already agreed to produce the very document Plaintiff asked for – Ford’s
Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual for 2022, subject to protective order. Ford
has clarified that the 2022 manual also applies to the year 2023. However, Ford
also notes that it objected to the request because requesting policies and procedures
from 2022 to present is an overly broad request and seeks irrelevant documents.
The Court agrees. As such, the Court finds that Request No. 16 shall be
produced as to the 2022 Policy and Procedure manual subject to the protective
order. If not protected, the Court would find reasonable, Ford’s response that
such documentation is confidential.
With
respect to Request Nos. 19-31, they ask Ford to produce documents regarding a
customer’s request for vehicle repurchase and/or determine whether a vehicle is
eligible for a repurchase or refund. The Court also finds such documents to be
directly relevant to Plaintiff’s case. In opposition, Ford also notes that it
agreed to produce relevant documents, subject to protective order, expressly
stated that it could not locate scripts requested in Request No. 24, and
properly objected to Plaintiff’s request for additional documents as overly
broad, seeking irrelevant information and lacking required specificity. The
Court seeks oral argument as to why Plaintiff requests documents from outside
of the year her vehicle was purchased. The Court’s tentative ruling is to find
that such documentation is overly broad and outside the scope of relevant
information for Plaintiff. However, the Court nonetheless finds the
documentation for the relevant year(s) to be relevant, but understands that
such information is subject to a protective order.
C.
Sanctions
Sanctions are mandatory in connection with
motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of
documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or
opposes a motion to compel.¿¿(CCP. §§
2030.290(c),¿2030.300(d),¿2031.300(c),¿and
2031.310(h).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if the court “finds that the
one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other
circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”¿¿(Id.)
Here,
Plaintiff asserts it is entitled to sanctions against Ford and its counsel in
the amount of $2,610. As this time, the Court does not award sanctions as the
meet and confer efforts indicate that Ford was willing to produce the
documentation subject to a protective order, and the requests were still
brought.
D.
Ford’s Motion for Protective Order
Legal Standard
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.060(a),
“[w]hen an inspection copying,
testing, or sampling of documents, tangible things, places, or electronically
stored information has been demanded, the party to whom the demand has been
directed, and any other party or affected person, may promptly move for a
protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer
declaration under Section 2016.040.” The Court, for good cause shown, may make
any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted
annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. (C.C.P. §
2031.060(b).) Further, the party seeking a protective order regarding the
production of electronically stored information shall bear the burden of
demonstrating that the information is from a source that is not reasonably
accessible because of undue burden (C.C.P. § 2031.060(c).)
Discussion
Here,
Ford notes that the parties have agreed that a protective order is warranted,
but note that the parties cannot agree on a few of Ford’s requested revisions
to the Model Order. Ford notes that it seeks and has pared its proposed changes
down to just three paragraphs which include:
Paragraph
7: Ford’s revisions clarify sub-section (b), confirming that the term
“affiliated attorneys” mean attorneys in the same firm. Ford’s revision also
provides that Plaintiff’s counsel’s office personnel who have access to Ford’s
confidential documents must sign Exhibit A. The Court is NOT inclined to
approve this modification
Ford
proposes a revision to subsection (d) to include videographers and litigation
support companies (along with court reporters), who may have access to Ford’s
confidential documents by virtue of their retention in a case. The Court is NOT
inclined to approve this change, but will take argument from Ford as to why this
modification is needed, i.e., if there has ever been an occasion where such a
person has disclosed or disseminated materials presented or discussed in front
of them during a deposition or other hearing.
Ford
removed sub-section (f), which permitted mock jurors to access Ford’s confidential
documents because Ford has no ability to identify such persons or ensure (or
confirm) their compliance. The Court is NOT inclined to approve this modification.
Ford
also revised sub-section (g) to include non-attorneys with experts, and to
provide that Ford’s confidential documents may not be shown to competitors of
Ford. The Court is inclined to approve this
modification.
Paragraph
8: Ford’s revisions provide that the receiving party may not post
Ford’s confidential documents to any website or advertise Ford’s documents for
sale. These provisions are reasonable and necessary to protect Ford’s documents
from improper dissemination. The Court thus
approves Ford modification
Paragraph
21: Ford’s revisions clarify the process for Plaintiff’s counsel to
return or destroy Ford’s confidential documents at the conclusion of the case
and require that all of Ford’s confidential documents be returned or destroyed
when the case is over. The Court is
inclined to approve this modification as well.
¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿
¿¿¿
¿¿
¿
¿