Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV00445, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV00445, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV00445 Hearing Date: March 13, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: March 13, 2024

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV00445

¿¿

CASE NAME: Gabriella Morgan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al.

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Gabriella Morgan

¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TRIAL DATE: May 5, 2025

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One

(2) Request for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings: (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One is CONTINUED to April 26. The parties are ordered to meet and confer pursuant to the guidelines provided by this Court, with a joint report on what issues or categories remaining due by April 12 and a revised Separate Statement due by April 19

(2) Plaintiffs’ Requests for Sanctions is CONTINUED and will be determined at the next hearing.

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

On February 15, 2023, Plaintiff, Gabriella Morgan (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., and DOES 1 through 10. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty; and (2) Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment.

On October 17, 2023, Plaintiff propounded her first set of discovery requests, including Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), to investigate proof of her claim and evidence of Honda’s defenses. Per the moving papers, on November 30, 2023, Defendant served its responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, but notes that many of Defendant’s written responses to several categories failed to either agree to produce the documents, agreed to produce certain document and failed to do so, or failed to properly object in a manner required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff notes that on January 8, 2024, Plaintiff initiated a meet and confer letter to Defendant specifying the deficiencies in Defendant’s responses and requesting they be corrected. Given the 45-day period in which to bring a motion to compel further responses, the delay by Plaintiff in getting her meet-and-confer letter to Honda effectively consumed almost all of the time to informally resolve the discovery dispute before a motion needed to be filed. In this letter, Plaintiff requested that Defendant respond in less than a week, i.e., by January 12, 2024, but that Defendant failed to respond. On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff notes that it sent another meet and confer letter, requesting Defendant respond by January 16, 2024. Nonetheless, Plaintiff argues in the motion that Defendant “ignored” these two short-windowed attempts at meeting and conferring to resolve the discover disputes before seeking the Court’s assistance.

Plaintiff now brings this motion to compel further responses seeking an order from this Court to compel Defendant to produce proper, Code-compliant, verified further responses Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, all documents, and award monetary sanctions.

B. Procedural¿¿

On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. On March 1, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition. On March 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

¿ ¿¿

¿II. MEET AND CONFER

Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(b)(2) requires that a motion to compel a part deponent to appear or produce documents “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (C.C.P. §2025.450(b)(2).) The attempt to resolve informally may be made either by conferring “in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney.” (C.C.P. §2023.010(i), [failure to make such attempt constitutes “misuse of discovery process”].)

Here, the Court finds that the parties have not sufficiently met and conferred despite Plaintiff’s two attempts at doing so. As noted below, the Court is continuing this motion and ordering the parties to meet and confer by March 28, 2024, and provide the Court with a status update on what issues remain after the parties meet and confer.

III. ANALYSIS¿

A. Legal Standard

“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

Preliminarily, the Court notes that the purpose of a Separate Statement in a discovery motion is to make it easier, not harder, for the Court to rule on specific interrogatories or document demand categories. Regurgitating the full length of arguments, points, authorities, and citations from a moving or opposing brief in a separate statement, especially to the extent done by both sides here, violates the page limitations of briefs supporting or opposing a motion. The Court did not and will not read a 107-page separate statement that appears to contain repetitively regurgitated material from the parties’ briefs. Accordingly, the revised Separate Statement to be submitted will contain only the definitions plus the verbatim requests at issue and the verbatim written response to each request at issue. If a supplemental response was given, the revised Separate Statement must include that as well immediately following the initial verbatim language of the original written response.

For purposes of enabling counsel to prepare for both their meet and confer and the parties’ oral argument, the Court sets forth below some basic parameters for what it typically orders with respect to certain of the discovery requests embraced by this motion. The Court typically orders and limits production of documents including ESI in a Song-Beverly single-vehicle case as follows:

1. Purchase and/or lease contract concerning the subject vehicle must be produced.

2. Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle must be produced, including the “accounting” copies showing the hours and dates of activity by dealer personnel.

3. Communications between the plaintiff and the warrantor/manufacturer and/or its servicing dealers, and communications between Plaintiff and the manufacturer’s factory representative and/or call center concerning the subject vehicle.

4. Warranty claims submitted to and/or approved by Defendant concerning the subject vehicle.

5. The applicable Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the year the lawsuit was filed. If a separate written policy, procedure, or manual exists regarding repurchases or buy backs appliable to vehicles sold or leased in California, that would also be required to be produced for the year the lawsuit was filed and/or the year Plaintiff contends the vehicle became qualified for repurchase (such as upon satisfaction of the Presentation Element of a Song-Beverly cause of action under Section 1793.2(d)(2) or 1793.22). Such documents would be produced subject to a protective order.

6. Any internal analysis and/or investigation regarding the primary or other recurring alleged defects claimed by plaintiff in her/his vehicle, applicable to the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. The Court tends to focus on the claimed symptom experienced by the plaintiff as described in the dealers’ repair records, rather than a broad and vague characterization of the claimed defect as described by counsel in the litigation. For example, if the customer experienced a black Infotainment screen when shifting in reverse, or a harsh engagement or clunk of the transmission when accelerating from 2nd to 3rd gear, those symptoms rather than any other nature of malfunction of the Infotainment system or transmission would be the narrowing of scope of such internal analysis or investigation to be produced.

7. Other customers’ complaints similar to the alleged defects claimed by plaintiff, limited to vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. The other customer complaints again would be limited in scope to the description of the symptom as shown on the dealer repair records. The Court typically discusses with counsel the type of documents that may be required and the format for a production of documents such as in a sortable Excel spreadsheet that lists a compilation or summary of voluminous documents.

8. Technical Service Bulletins and/or Recall Notices for vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle, whether mentioned in the repair history of the subject vehicle or not, but limited to the symptoms or type of symptoms reported in the subject vehicle’s repair history.

Because the Court is continuing this motion to April 26, the request for sanctions is also continued and will be discussed during the continued hearing. The parties are thus ordered to meet and confer by March 28, 2024. A joint status report by the parties is due to be filed on or before April 12, 2024. Further, Plaintiff is required to refile a separate statement as detailed above on or before April 19, but limited to those categories or request numbers that remain at issue after the Court-ordered meet and confer process.

IV. CONCLUSION¿¿

¿¿¿

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and her request for monetary sanctions are CONTINUED to April 26.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

¿¿¿

¿¿