Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV01800, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV01800    Hearing Date: November 21, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE:                 November 21, 2024

CASE NUMBER:                  24TRCV01800

CASE NAME:                        Luz Ochoa and Daniel Lara v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al.

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiffs, Luz Ochoa and Daniel Lara

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

TRIAL DATE:                        Not Set.

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

                                                (2) Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions

                                                (3) AHM’s Request for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings:                   (1) Motion to Compel AHM’s Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One is CONTINUED.

                                                (2) Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is CONTINUED.

                                                (3) AHM’s Request for Sanctions is CONTINUED.

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Factual

On May 28, 2024, Plaintiffs, Luz Ochoa and Daniel Lara (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., (“AHM”) and DOES 1 through 10. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty; and (2) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warrant Act Breach of Implied Warranty; and (3) Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200.  

On July 11, 2024, Plaintiffs propounded their first set of discovery requests, including Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), to investigate and develop the case. On August 27, 2024, Defendant served its responses which Plaintiffs believe include several non-code compliant responses. According to Plaintiffs, aside from asserting inappropriate objections, Defendant failed to provide substantive responses to many of Plaintiffs’ requests. In response, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defense counsel on August 18, 2024, outlining the perceived deficiencies with a new deadline set for August 24, 2024. To date, Plaintiffs maintain Defendant has not provided the required responses and has significantly disrupted the discovery process.

Thus, Plaintiffs move to compel AHM’s further responses.

B. Procedural 

            On October 15, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this Motion to Compel AHM’s Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. On November 7, 2024, AHM filed an opposition brief. To date, no reply brief has been filed.  

II. ANALYSIS

A.    Legal Standard

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

a.       Meet and Confer Efforts are Insufficient

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, a motion seeking to compel further responses to inspection demands must be “accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) Here, Plaintiffs’ attorney, Ezra Ryu, has filed a declaration (“Ryu Decl.”) which discusses his meet and confer efforts with AHM’s counsel.

Here, the court finds that Plaintiffs’ meet and confer efforts are insufficient for a number of reasons. Ryu asserts he sent a letter to AHM’s counsel on August 18, 2024 to begin the meet and confer process which outlined the perceived deficiencies in AHM’s responses and stated the new deadline of August 24, 2024. (Ryu Decl., ¶ 5.) However, the moving papers concede that AHM did not serve its responses until August 27, 2024 - after the letter and new deadline date were already set. The court is perplexed how Ryu could send a meet and confer letter regarding the perceived deficiencies of AHM’s responses without actually receiving those responses prior to said letter being sent.

The court understands that based on the letter attached to the Ryu declaration as Exhibit C, that Plaintiff’s moving papers may include a clerical error when labeling the date of the letter and due dates as August 18th and 24th, despite the letters specifying September 18th and 24th. (Ryu Decl., Exhibit C.) However, this discrepancy does not end at the potential clerical error. As noted by AHM’s opposition brief, the letter further presents the following discrepancies: (1) this letter was sent to a different attorney at a different firm; (2) although the Plaintiffs listed in the case at bar were written in the RE: line, the case number listed is for a different case; (3) the vehicle listed is different from that of the Subject vehicle; and (4) the first sentence of the letter refers to different plaintiffs. (Declaration of Jessica L. Barakat (“Barakat Decl.”), ¶ 8.) Taken in totality, each of these factors renders Plaintiffs’ meet and confer efforts insufficient.

Even if the court were to overlook all of the discrepancies presented in Plaintiffs’ counsel’s meet and confer efforts, the court would still find Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts to be insufficient. Sending one letter that requires further responses to be submitted less than a week after the date of the letter is not what this court considers to be meeting and conferring in good faith. Even though neither Plaintiffs’ moving papers nor AHM’s opposition papers include a response from AHM, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s one attempt at contacting AHM’s counsel would not be enough. There is no indication that a follow up email was sent nor an attempt to contact Defense counsel telephonically even after AM served responses.  

Thus, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer in good faith prior to the court’s decision on this motion. This motion is CONTINUED to January 9, 2025. Plaintiffs will be required to file a supplemental declaration or status report by January 2, 2025 detailing the parties’ meet and confer efforts as well as the remaining discovery at issue after such efforts.

For purposes of enabling counsel to prepare for both their meet and confer and the parties’ oral argument at the continued hearing, 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.      Limiting the relevant time period of a document category requested to the year during which the Plaintiff’s pre-litigation demand for repurchase was pending or the year in which Plaintiff contends that the presentation for repair reached the threshold for Honda to be required on its own to have determined a buy-back was required. 

2.      Limiting the scope of requests for overall buyback and warranty or buyback cost data and statistics to those relating to the nature of the Plaintiff’s alleged nonconformity, i.e., in this case a sensing defect, not buybacks or warranty costs or similar statistics for engines, Infotainment systems, steering system issues, exhaust systems, etc. 

3.      Limiting the scope of the exceedingly broad definition of “Documents” to limit the obvious burden of requiring AHM to ask each of its employees to search their email accounts for internal emails that might contain the word “sensing” or “collision mitigation,” etc.  The Court generally orders the responding party to identify and produce internal reports, not internal emails, and to identify and produce external emails such as those to or from the Plaintiff, plaintiff’s counsel, and the NHTSA. 

4.      Denying a compelled further response to a discovery request that requires the responding party to review the subject vehicle’s repair history and respond to document demands that broadly relate to any complaint raised in the Plaintiff’s repair history. 

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

6.      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.

7.      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.

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

9.      A letter or other approval from the Department of Consumer Affairs evidencing certification of the Defendant’s qualified third-party dispute resolution process, i.e., Lemon Arbitration Program compliant with Civil Code section 1793.22(d).

10.  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.

11.  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 2^nd to 3^rd gear, those symptoms rather than any other generalized nature of malfunction of the Infotainment system or transmission would be the narrowing of scope of such internal analysis or investigation to be produced. 

12.  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 Model year 2021 Honda Accord 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 much more voluminous documents.  The spreadsheet typically would contain the repair date, the VIN last 6 of the other customers’ vehicle, the servicing dealer by name, location and/or dealer code, a description of the customer’s complaint as listed in the warranty claim submission, the determined cause if any of that complaint or whether no problem or cause was found, and the correction, repair, or replacement performed if any.

a.       The Court intends to narrow the scope of permissible discovery of other MY 2021 Honda Accord vehicles’ customer complaints as noted above.  Thus, the volume of customer repair files to be reviewed will be only the MY 2021 Honda Accords sold or leased in California, a much smaller and less burdensome amount than the national total of all MY 2021 Accord vehicles distributed in the United States.  Further, the parties shall discuss search terms for key words to be used in a program for AHM to run on its digitally stored records in AHM’s customer care center records and in its warranty reimbursement system records.  If AHM does not have its records stored in a database or other digitally searchable system, that will be a point to advise the Court after the conclusion of the meet and confer process.  The Court will NOT order AHM to identify the other customers by name, address, telephone number or any other PII.  Any such compilation will be subject to a Discovery Protective Order in this case, and the custodian or other person who generates the compilation may need to be identified if the parties cannot stipulate to the use and admissibility of the chart.

b.      The Court will not order production of ESI as to other California customers’ complaints of repair issues that occurred on a single occasion in the plaintiff’s repair history.  Merely because the Plaintiff experienced a repair issue does not make discovery of every other California customer’s records for that repair issue reasonable when considering the needs of the litigation, the importance of that issue to the issues disputed in this litigation, the amount in controversy, and the costs of providing the broader scope of discovery sought by Plaintiff. 

13.  Technical Service Bulletins and/or Recall Notices for vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle, beginning with those mentioned in the repair history of the subject 2021 Honda Accord.

Because the court is continuing this motion, the request for sanctions are also continued and are to be discussed during the continued motion.