Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 24AHCV00232, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24AHCV00232    Hearing Date: November 20, 2024    Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

STEVE JUNG, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.

Case No.: 24AHCV00232

Hearing Date: November 20, 2024

Time: 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiff STEVE JUNG

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

This is a Song-Beverly Act action. Plaintiff Steve Jung filed the complaint against defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. on February 2, 2024. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) violation of subdivision (d) of Civil Code section 1793.2; (2)violation of subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1793.2; (3) violation of subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code section 1793.2; (4) breach of express written warranty; and (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiff alleges he purchased a 2022 Volkswagen Jetta SEL (subject vehicle) on April 18, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that the subject vehicle contained or developed engine and brake defects.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on October 14, 2024. Defendant filed the opposition on November 6, 2024. Plaintiff filed his reply on November 13, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

With respect to requests for production of documents there are three appropriate responses: (1) a statement that the party will comply with the request; (2) a statement of inability to comply; or (3) an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210(a).)

The requesting party may move for an order compelling further responses to request for production of documents if any of the following apply: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).)

The motion must be filed within 45 days from verified responses, supplemental responses, or a specific later date agreed to in writing (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) Failure to make motion within the specified period constitutes waiver of right to compel a further response. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The time period is mandatory and jurisdictional in the sense that it renders the Court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them. (Id.)

The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(2).) The purpose of the meet and confer requirement is to encourage the parties to make serious effort to work out differences informally and avoid a need for a formal order. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1016.)

Under Rule of Court 3.1345, the movant must submit a separate statement along with the motion to compel further responses. The movant must include specific facts showing good cause justifying further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).)

DISCUSSION

A. Timeliness

Plaintiff served Request for Production of Documents, Set One by mail on April 18, 2024. (Decl. of Benjeman Beck, ¶ 15.) On June 24, 2024, defendant served responses, consisting only of objections, to plaintiff’s written discovery. (Decl. of Benjeman Beck, ¶ 19.) On August 5, 2024, defendant served further, verified responses. (Decl. of Benjeman Beck, ¶ 22.) On September 18, 2024, counsel met and conferred telephonically and agreed to extend the deadline to file a motion to compel to October 7, 2024, which was memorized in an email. (Decl. of Benjeman Beck, ¶ 26; Exh. 11.) On October 7, 2024, counsel agreed to extend plaintiff's filing deadline through October 14, 2024. (Decl. of Benjeman Beck, ¶ 28; Exh. 11.) Since plaintiff filed the instant motion on October 14, 2024, plaintiff’s motion is timely.

B. Meet and Confer

After defendant provided further response, plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to defendant’s counsel on September 16, 2024. (Decl. of Benjeman Beck, ¶ 25; Exh. 10.) On September 18, 2024, counsel met and conferred telephonically and agreed to allow defendant more time to respond to the meet and confer correspondence. (Decl. of Benjeman Beck, ¶ 26.) On October 4, 2024, plaintiff’s counsel emailed counsel for defendant regarding the status of a response to the September 16, 2024, meet and confer letter. (Decl. of Benjeman Beck, ¶ 27.) On October 7, 2024, counsel agreed to provide defendant additional time to resolve the disputed discovery. (Decl. of Benjeman Beck, ¶ 28.) The court finds that plaintiff satisfied the meet and confer requirement.

C. Separate Statement

Plaintiff’s statement of insufficiency in his separate statement consists mostly of boilerplate language plaintiff copy and pasted for each request, sometimes including language relating to vehicles other than the subject vehicle, “the 2019 Infiniti Vehicles” and includes reference to “GM” when the defendant is Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Plaintiff argues that defendant’s responses are boilerplate objections. Despite these deficiencies, the court will consider the motion on the merits.

D. Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFP Nos. 7, 10, 16-22, 27, 34, 37, 41-42, and 56

Plaintiff moves to compel defendant to provide further responses to RFP nos. 7, 10, 16-22, 27, 34, 37, 41-42, and 56. Defendant states that on November 6, 2024, it served additional confidential documents responsive to request nos. 7, 8, 34, and 37 under the stipulated to protective order. (Decl. of Shaun Kim, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff does not dispute this. Because defendant produced further documents, these requests are moot.

As for RFP no. 10, the court finds that the workshop manual sought by this request is relevant to evaluating whether the manufacturer provides effective instructions to perform repairs properly, and whether the technician properly repaired the subject vehicle. The request for the entire manual is overbroad and limits the production of the workshop manual to portions that address the repairs the subject vehicle needed and/or performed on the subject vehicle. The court orders defendant to provide further responses and produce documents to RFP no. 10.

Regarding RFP nos. 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 41 the court finds that analysis and investigation documents; communications; and notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins (TSBs), recalls, failure rates, fixes, and vehicle warranty history reports for repurchased or replaced vehicles regarding the emissions defect are relevant because the subject vehicle experienced the emissions defect, as defined, and these documents could tend to establish that defendant was aware of the emission defect, investigated the defect, and may have provided repair procedures for the defect that were ineffective. This is relevant to show that defendant may not have known how to fix the emissions defect and nevertheless failed to repurchase the vehicle. These documents are also probative to plaintiff’s ability be awarded civil penalties. The court orders defendant to provide further responses and produce documents to RFP nos. 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 41.

RFP no. 19 seeks documents regarding the emissions defect that may be relevant. However, the request is overbroad because it seeks customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims, and defendant’s responses to these, related to the emissions defect in general. The court narrows the request to those customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims made regarding the emission defect in vehicle of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle from the time plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, 2022, to the present. Accordingly, the court orders defendant to provide further responses and produce documents to RFP no. 19 as narrowed by the court.

Regarding RFP no. 22, plaintiff has not provided good cause for further responses be issued regarding TSBs issued or in the process of being issued for vehicles of the same year, make, and model. Plaintiff only argues that emissions defects were present in the subject vehicle, and this request asks for more than TSBs related to the emissions defect. Without a showing of good cause, the court denies plaintiff’s request to provide further responses and produce additional documents to RFP no. 22.

As to RFP no. 27, the court finds that plaintiff did not provide good cause for the production of documents regarding defendant’s document retention policy. Plaintiff’s statement of insufficiency argues that emissions defects were present in the subject vehicle which is not relevant to defendant’s document retention policy. Absent the requisite showing of good cause, the court denies plaintiff’s request to provide further responses and produce additional documents to RFP no. 27.

Regarding RFP no. 42, the court concludes that this request is relevant to identifying which employees were involved in or had oversight of the decision to deny plaintiff’s alleged repurchase request. These individuals could provide testimony to show whether defendant’s refusal was willful or made in good faith. However, defendant states that it already produced documents that included the names of all persons involved with plaintiff’s case including those involved in prelitigation communications between plaintiff and defendant. Accordingly, the court finds that further responses and documents to RFP no. 42 are not required.

RFP no. 56 is overbroad because it requests electronic mail, including but not limited to current, backed-up and archived programs, accounts, unified messaging, server-based e-mail, Web-based e-mail, dial-up e-mail, user names and addresses, domain names and addresses, e-mail messages, attachments, manual and automated mailing lists and mailing list addresses relating to emissions defects. While information on emissions defects, may be relevant to the case, plaintiff has not shown why these specific categories of documents are relevant and may lead to information that would help plaintiff prove its case. The statement of insufficiency merely points out that emissions defects are present in the subject vehicle and that TSBs show a repair procedure to address concerns. Without more, the court denies plaintiff’s request for further responses and production of documents to RFP no. 56.

 As to any claims of privilege, the court orders defendant to provide a privilege log pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section, 2031.240(c)(1): “If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.240(c)(1).)

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP nos. 10, 16-21, and 41. The court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP nos. 22, 27, 42, and 56. The court finds that RFP nos. 7, 8, 34, and 37 are MOOT.