Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV04005, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV04005, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV04005 Hearing Date: October 15, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: October 15, 2024

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV04005

CASE NAME: Miao Che v. Genesis Motor America, LLC, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Miao Che

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Genesis Motor America, LLC

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

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

Tentative Rulings: (1) DENIED in part, GRANTED in part, and ARGUE the remainder

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On December 1, 2023, Plaintiff, Miao Che (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant, Genesis Motor America LLC (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 through 100. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Breach of Implied Warranty; (2) Breach of Express Warranty; and (3) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

On April 1, 2024, Plaintiff served Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on Defendant. On July 8, 2024, Plaintiff contends that she received Defendant’s unverified objection-only responses. Further, Plaintiff asserts that on July 24, 2024, Plaintiff received Defendants unverified supplemental responses.

Plaintiff asserts that from April 1, 2020 to July 8, 2024, Defendant’s counsel repeatedly refused to respond to Plaintiff’s RFP despite hours of meeting and conferring and five (5) extensions to respond. Additionally, Plaintiff notes that on July 31, 2024, her counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant’s counsel, explaining Defendant’s defective responses and the need for further responses to discovery. On August 9, 2024, Plaintiff states that Defendant submitted a written response that contained only objections and no documents were produced in response to the Requests at issue in this motion, which frustrated Plaintiff because of the number of extension requests and efforts to explain what documents plaintiff sought. As such, Plaintiff has filed this Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.

B. Procedural

On August 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. On September 5, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition brief. On September 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

On September 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of rescheduled hearing for Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Demand for Sanctions. On September 24, 2024, this Court continued the hearing on its own motion to October 15, 2024.

II. 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

i. Meet and Confer Efforts

In the declaration of Bryan M. Geoulla (“Geoulla Decl.”), counsel for Plaintiff states that prior to Defendant providing responses, he met and conferred with Defense counsel on numerous occasions regarding the failure of Defendant to respond to discovery. (Geoulla Decl., ¶¶18-28.) After Defendant served its responses, Mr. Geoulla asserts that he sent another meet and confer letter on July 31, 2024 that discussed Defendant’s discovery responses and Plaintiff’s argument that they were deficient, and also sought further verified responses by August 9, 2024. Additional unsuccessful efforts at informal resolution ensued before Plaintiff brought this instant motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s discovery.

In the opposition brief, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith prior to the filing of this motion. Defense counsel contends that the July 31, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a 33-page meet and confer letter regarding responses to Request for Production of Documents and Special Interrogatories to which a response was demanded just nine (9) days later. (Declaration of Richard Burgos, Esq. (“Burgos Decl.”), ¶ 10.) Burgos contends that with only nine (9) days to respond, he attempted to reach out to Plaintiff’s counsel via phone and left voicemails on July 31st, August 2nd, August 5th, and August 9th. (Burgos Decl., ¶ 11.) On August 9th, Burgos notes that he sent a response to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter asking for a phone call to meet and confer. (Burgos Decl., ¶ 11, Exhibit E.) On August 20th, there was a phone conversation between Defendant’s counsel and Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the claimed need for more time to communicate to the client about the meet and confer. (Burgos Decl., ¶ 12.) Burgos notes that no definitive due date was given. (Burgos Decl., ¶ 12.) On September 5, 2024, Burgos indicates that he sent an email to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting to have the matter resolved via IDC which Plaintiff’s counsel had not responded to. (Burgos Decl., ¶ 14, Exhibit F.) Burgos asserts that Plaintiff’s motion to compel could have been resolved if it were not for Plaintiff’s counsel’s refusal to sign a Protective Order and determination to file this Motion to Compel. (Burgos Decl., ¶ 15.)

The Court is satisfied that neither side made much movement in the meet and confer process, and that the potential path of an IDC was never explored until after the motion was filed. Thus, there was sufficient meet and confer attempts, all of which were unsuccessful.

ii. Requests for Production of Documents

Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court compelling Defendant’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 6, 8, 12, 20, 24, and 39. The Court’s tentative rulings as to the 6 Requests at issue are as follows:

RFP No. 6: DENIED. The Court sustains Defendant’s objections as to being compound and overly broad. This Court typically orders Defendants in SBA cases to produce evidence of other customers’ warranty claims, but only when these are narrowly tailored to the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle sold within the State of California and only as to the Plaintiff’s reported symptom that appeared more than one time in the repair history. The Court’s assessment is evidence of other customers’ vehicles is not “reasonably” calculated to lead to admissible evidence when the plaintiff’s symptom or repair complaint in the subject vehicle’s history is resolved in a single attempt or never recurs. Plaintiff’s RFP No. 6 does not include any such narrowing language. The definitions of “Sunroof Defects” and “Engine Defects” are also compound and embrace a number of different reported symptoms in the subject vehicle. As to the objection of overbreadth, which is effectively a compound set of requests contained in a single numbered RFP category, the Court observes that RFP 6 lists different categories of types of documents involving other customers’ vehicles (field reports, dealer contacts, warranty claims, customer complaints, claims and reported failures” plus Defendant’s response to each. In the Court’s judgment, that constellation of multiple requests is overly broad in a single-vehicle Song-Beverly Act cases. Given the Plaintiffs’ discovery requests seeking evidence relating to other vehicles besides Plaintiff’s with any of the combination of possible repair complaints not only in California but in any other state, this RFP is unduly burdensome, taking into account the needs of this case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in this litigation. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.030(a)(2).)

The Denial of the motion as to this RFP is without prejudice to a narrowly tailored future RFPs that are each limited to a single repair symptom in Plaintiff’s vehicle (e.g., rattle noise from sunroof when driving over bumps) that was subject to repair or a presentation on more than one occasion, and as to a single category of requested document (e.g., warranty claims).

RFP No. 8, 24: ARGUE. The Court is unsure what documents are being sought here. Assuming that “Techline support” is a Genesis hotline or customer assistance contact portal, and that “YOUR STUI” is a Genesis platform, the Court would be inclined to overrule the objections and require Defendant to make a Code-compliant response pursuant to the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure §2031.230, i.e., that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry have been made and Defendant is unable to comply because no such documents exist or that if they previously existed why they are no longer is Defendants’ possession, custody or control. The Court notes that these RFPs are specifically limited to the subject vehicle not any other customers’ vehicles.

RFP No. 12 and 20: ARGUE. As to each of these requests, Defendant responded after a litany of objections that the documents it previously produced in Exhibit A are all of the responsive documents or things relevant to this request that are currently in the possession, custody, or control of responding party, and to which no objection is being made. The final clause of the compliance response is troublesome to the Court, because it suggests that there are some documents as to which an objection is being made and others that are not objected to. There is no privilege log so if some documents are being withheld based on attorney client privilege, a privilege log is required by Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.240(c)(1) and (2). It would surprise the Court is the Global Diagnostic System or Dealer Communication System would contain attorney-client privileged communications, but if there are then a log must be provided. The Court notes that these RFPs are specifically limited to the subject vehicle not any other customers’ vehicles. The Court would be inclined to overrule the objections and require Defendant to make a Code-compliant response pursuant to the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure §2031.230 as noted for RFPs 8 and 24.

RFP No. 39: GRANT. This RFP seeks a permissible ambit of discovery, which are facts, witnesses, or documents upon which a party currently bases its contention. (See, e.g., Singer v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1960) 54 Cal.2d 318, 326 (contention interrogatories are permissible form of discovery); Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 281; Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1262 (interrogatory is the most suitable tool and a deposition is not suitable for seeking information that supports a party’s contentions). The Judicial Council approved form interrogatory 17.1, which in its subsection (c) requires a party to identify documents that support a party’s denial of a request for admission. Other than the claims of work product and attorney client privilege, the objections are overruled and a verified further response if required.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, this Court DENIES in part, GRANTS in part, and requires oral argument from the parties as to the remaining requests for production of documents.