Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00894, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00894    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff Gustavo Gradilla-Gonzalez’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One

Respondent: Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Gustavo Gradilla-Gonzalez’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is ordered to serve verified responses to Requests 16, 18 and 21 within ten (10) days.  The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests 17, 19, and 20 is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action. On July 30, 2016, Plaintiff Gustavo Gradilla-Gonzalez entered into a written warranty agreement with Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. by purchasing a 2016 Honda Civic. The warranty agreement promised Defendant would preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the vehicle and provide compensation if there is a failure in utility or performance over a specified period of time. During the warranty period, Plaintiff’s vehicle developed defects including a defective air conditioning system and body system.

On November 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant and Does 1-50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d); (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b); (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3); (4) breach of express written warranty pursuant to Civil Code sections 1791.2, subdivision (a) and 1794; and (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability pursuant to Civil Code sections 1791.1 and 1794.

On September 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present motion. A hearing on Plaintiff’s motion is set for March 15, 2023. A final status conference is also set for October 10 and a jury trial is set for October 24.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide additional responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 16-21.

Legal Standard

A party may file a motion compelling further production if it deems the responses are inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the responses is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.) The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).) To prevail, the moving party must first offer specific facts demonstrating “good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

The court must impose sanctions on a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further unless the party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make imposing a sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) However, “absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as the result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (j)(1).)

Discussion

On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel propounded Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on Defendant. (Fennell Decl., ¶ 14.) On July 19, Defendant electronically served responses with boilerplate objections. (Fennell Decl., ¶ 15.) On July 20, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a meet and confer letter addressing Plaintiff’s issue with Defendant’s responses. (Fennell Decl., ¶ 19.) On August 12, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a second meet and confer letter, requesting a response to counsel’s July 20 letter. (Fennell Decl., ¶ 22.) On August 22, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a third meet and confer letter, noting counsel’s failure to reply to the previous letters and warning that Plaintiff’s counsel would file a motion to compel. (Fennell Decl., ¶ 23.) On August 26, Defendant’s counsel responded by reaffirming Defendant’s objections and previous responses. (Fennell Decl., ¶ 24.) Plaintiff’s counsel then sent a fourth meet and confer letter on August 26 that detailed why Defendant’s objections were unsubstantiated and why the requested documents were discoverable. (Fennell Decl., ¶ 25.) Defendant’s counsel did not respond by the time Plaintiff’s counsel filed the present motion. (Fennell Decl., ¶ 26.)

Requests for Production Nos. 16, 18, and 21

On March 1, 2023, Defendant served further responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, including numbers 16, 18, and 21. (Nelson Decl., 13.) However, Plaintiff claims Defendant’s responses were not verified. (Reply, p. 1:18-22.) Because unverified responses “are tantamount to no responses at all” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635), Plaintiff’s motion to compel further as to Nos. 16, 18, and 21 is GRANTED.

Request for Production Nos. 17, 19, and 20

These requests for production request documents related to defects in the 2016 Honda Civic heating and cooling system. In particular, RFP No. 17 requests all communications concerning the defects including engineer communications, tech reports, and Star reports. RFP No. 19 requests documents involving customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims involving the defects. Lastly, RFP No. 20 requests all documents concerning failure rates of 2016 Honda Civics as a result of the defects.

In response to each of these requests, Defendant asserts the following objections: vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, violates privacy rights, violations attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, is premature, and calls for information that is confidential, commercially sensitive, proprietary, or trade secret. In arguing these discovery requests are undiscoverable or irrelevant, Defendant claims Plaintiff’s action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act) only requires Plaintiff to establish Plaintiff’s vehicle was not in conformity with the warranty as evidenced by its repair history and that Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s concerns involving the vehicle. Therefore, Defendant argues discovery into issues with other 2016 Honda Civics is outside the scope of discovery.

Pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act, a plaintiff “has the burden to prove that (1) the vehicle had a nonconformity covered by the express warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle (the nonconformity element); (2) the vehicle was presented to an authorized representative of the manufacturer of the vehicle for repair (the presentation element); and (3) the manufacturer or his representative did not repair the nonconformity after a reasonable number of repair attempts (the failure to repair element).” (Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101, citing Civ. Code, § 1793.2 and Ibrahim v. Ford Motor Co. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 878, 886-887.) In Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138 (Donlen), the court held a jury’s verdict that the manufacturer failed to bring the vehicle into conformity with warranty was supported by sufficient evidence, including evidence establishing the manufacturer was already aware of ongoing defects through service messages and technical service bulletins. (Id., at p. 153-154.)

Defendant distinguishes Donlen on the grounds that the case did not rule on the propriety of discovery. Defendant is correct that Donlen did not deal with a discovery dispute and instead assessed whether the jury’s verdict in a lemon law action was supported by substantial evidence. The court notes that in Donlen such evidence supported the jury’s verdict.  However, Plaintiff’s requests are overly broad and not specifically tailored to request the relevant data as identified in Donlen.    

Accordingly, the court sustains Defendant’s objections to Requests 17, 19, and 20 on grounds that the requests are overly broad, irrelevant, and violate the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine.  No further responses to these requests are required.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is GRANTED as to Requests 16, 18, and 21.  Defendant to provide a verified response in ten (10) days.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is DENIED as to Requests 17, 19, and 20.