Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 24TRCV01796, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV01796, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV01796 Hearing Date: February 4, 2025 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: February 4, 2025

CASE NUMBER: 24TRCV01796

CASE NAME: Dennis McBride; Melanie McBride v. Ford Motor Company, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Dennis McBride and Melanie McBride

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Ford Motor Company

TRIAL DATE: July 10, 2025

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

Tentative Rulings: (1) DENIED. The motion was brought well beyond the 45-day period of CCP §2031.310(c) and Ford never agreed in writing to extend the deadline

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On May 28, 2024, Plaintiffs, Dennis McBride and Melanie McBride (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Ford Motor Company, South Bay Ford, Inc. dba South Bay Ford, and DOES 1 through 10. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty; (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty; (3) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2; and (4) Negligent Repair.

On July 29, 3034, Plaintiffs propounded Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on Defendant, Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”) seeking documents relating to: (1) Plaintiffs’ own vehicle; (2) Defendant’s warranty and replacement/repurchase policies, procedures, and practices; and (3) Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle. On August 30, 2024, Defendant responded to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, but Plaintiffs state that Ford asserted boilerplate objections that were not code compliant.

At that time, Plaintiffs also state Defendant failed to produce many of the responsive documents and that the documents Ford did produce were not provided until long after the verified written responses. For example, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has not produced the entirety of the emails, memoranda, data or investigations that could help Plaintiffs establish Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model. This evidence would establish Defendant’s knowledge and inability to repair the defects, as well as its failure to adequately compensate Plaintiffs with respect to the Subject Vehicle despite Defendant’s inability to repair the vehicle within a reasonable number of repair

opportunities. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has attempted to improperly limit the scope of discovery to Plaintiffs’ individual vehicle complaints and individual vehicle.

Plaintiffs’ attorney attempted to meet and confer regarding their perceived deficiencies of Defendant’s responses. However, Plaintiffs maintain tat Defendants failed to respond, as well as failed to provide adequate discovery responses or documents to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Accordingly, Plaintiffs brought this Motion to Compel Defendant, Ford’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.

B. Procedural

On December 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel Defendant Ford’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. On January 17, 2025, Defendant Ford filed an opposition brief. On January 28, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Further, 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 motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).

B. Discussion

i. Meet and Confer Efforts

Plaintiffs have submitted the declaration of Ningjing Jiang, Esq. (“Jiang Decl.”) in support of their moving papers. Jiang explains that on September 23, 2024, Jiang sent Defense Counsel a meet and confer letter regarding Defendant’s responses. (Jiang Decl., ¶ 29, Exhibit 10.) Per the September 23, 2024 letter, Plaintiffs gave Defendant until September 30, 2024 to provide further responses and requested an extension for Plaintiffs to file a Motion to Compel

Further by fifteen (15) days. (Jiang Decl., Exhibit 10.) However, Defense counsel did not respond to this letter. There thus was no agreement in writing to extend the 45-day period.

After receiving no response, Jiang submits that a follow up meet and confer letter was sent to Defense Counsel on October 1, 2024. (Jiang Decl., ¶ 30, Exhibit 11.) A review of this letter informs the Court that Plaintiffs requested further responses be served by October 8, 2024. (Jiang Decl., Exhibit 11.) The letter concludes by stating: “Plaintiffs are willing to allow Defendant additional time to supplement its responses provided Defendant gives Plaintiffs an extension to file a motion to compel, should one eventually prove necessary.” (Jiang Decl., Exhibit 11, p. 14.) However, Defendant never responded to this letter either.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s meet and confer efforts were sufficient to bringing a motion to compel further responses.

ii. Requests for Production of Documents, Set One

Although Plaintiffs offered extensions to file this motion in both of their meet and confer letters, Defense Counsel never responded to either letter, and thus, did not agree to an extension for Plaintiffs to file this motion. Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310(c ) requires the Court to deny a motion to compel further responses where, as here, the motion is filed beyond the 45-day period after service of the verified response where there is no agreement in writing between the parties to extend the deadline to bring the motion to compel.

Plaintiffs’ moving papers state that Defendant Ford served responses on August 30, 2024. In Ford’s opposition, it states it served verified responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery on September 6, 2024. Therefore, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(c), Plaintiffs were required to bring this motion 45 days after September 6, 2024. However, this motion was not brought until December 20, 2024. Thus, the motion is untimely and is DENIED. Plaintiffs fail to address the untimeliness of their motion in the reply brief. However, because Plaintiffs were willing to give Ford much additional time to serve a further or amended response, by denying the motion the Court would create an arguable injustice because plaintiff’s counsel attempted to be cooperative and helpful in offering the defendant additional time to respond to meet and confer efforts. Thus, the Court will allow oral argument as to this issue during the hearing. However, the letter of the law appears to require the Court to deny the motion because Ford never responded to the meet and confer efforts and Ford never agreed in writing to extend the 45-day period.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Ford’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is DENIED.

Ford is ordered to give notice.