Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case Number: 23STCV04013, Date: 2023-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 23STCV04013, Date: 2023-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04013 Hearing Date: October 30, 2023 Dept: 31

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. It is granted as to Request Nos. 5, 7, 9-10, and otherwise denied.

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

On receipt of a response to an inspection demand, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that 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. (CCP § 2031.310(a).)

A motion to compel further response to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” CCP § 2031.310(b)(1). “To establish ‘good cause,’ the burden is on the moving party to show both: [1] Relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and [2] Specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). The fact that there is no alternative source for the information sought is an important factor in establishing ‘good cause’ for inspection. But it is not essential in every case.” (Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 8:1495.6 (citations omitted).) “Declarations are generally used to show the requisite ‘good cause’ for an order to compel inspection. The declarations must contain ‘specific facts’ rather than mere conclusions.” (Id. at 8:1495.7 (citation omitted).) “The declarations may be on information and belief, if necessary. However, in such cases, the ‘specific facts’ supporting such information and belief (the sources of the information) must also be alleged.” (Id. at 8:1495.8 (citation omitted).)

“If ‘good cause’ is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure (the same as on motions to compel answers to interrogatories or deposition questions. . . ).” (Id. at 8:1496 (citation omitted).)

Trial courts are vested with “wide discretion” to allow or prohibit discovery. (Williams v. Superior Court¿(2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

Meet and Confer

The motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a declaration showing “a reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues outside of court. (CCP §§2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2).)

The Court finds the meet and confer requirement has been met.

Discussion

Plaintiff requests that the court order Defendant to provide further responses and documents to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1-37.

Plaintiff propounded the Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on Defendant seeking documents relating to: (1) Plaintiff’s own vehicle (Request Nos. 1-15); (2) Defendant’s warranty and repurchase policies, procedures, and practices (Request Nos. 16-31); and (3) Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model. (Request Nos. 32-37). (Kohanoff Decl., ¶ 19, Ex. 4.)

First, Defendant stated it would comply with Requests for Production Nos. 1-3 and 6. Thus, the motion is moot as to Nos. 1-3 and 6.

Specifically, Plaintiff requested the following categories of documents:

No. 4: All DOCUMENTS relating or referring to Plaintiff and/or the SUBJECT VEHICLE whether those DOCUMENTS are in YOUR possession, YOUR customer relations' possession or YOUR customer service's possession, or in YOUR authorized dealership's possession.

JLRNA objects to this request to the extent it calls for documents that are in the possession, custody or control of third parties, and not JLRNA.

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.220 states, “A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.”

Plaintiff cannot attempt to force Defendant to obtain and produce documents that are not in its possession. Defendant properly objects that this request seeks document from Defendant’s authorized dealership who is not a party to this litigation. The Court will not compel a further response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, No. 4.

No. 5: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer or relate to any inspection of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

No. 7: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer or relate to sale contracts, lease agreements, service contracts, service agreements, and/or warranties on the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

The Court finds there is good cause to compel further responses to Nos. 5 and 7, and Defendant has not justified its objections. To the extent Defendant has asserted an objection based upon attorney-client privilege and work product, Defendant as the party asserting the protections of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, has the burden of presenting evidence to establish that the privilege and/or doctrine exists on these facts and covers the requested information. (Zimmerman v. Sup. Ct. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 389, 402; Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital v. Sup. Ct. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 711, 727-728.) Defendant has not done so. As to confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information, this is not a proper objection. A party who believes that a discovery request seeks confidential information must seek a protective order from the court. (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 23 (1968).)

No. 8: Any and all DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer or relate to repairs or service performed on the SUBJECT VEHICLE at any time and by any PERSON, including, but not limited to, service request DOCUMENTS, repair orders, invoices, labor receipts, parts order forms, computer printouts, parts receipts, canceled checks, and billing statements, and printout of the warranty repair history for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

JLRNA objects to this request to the extent it is compound, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and calls for documents that are not relevant to the subject matter. JLRNA objects to this request to the extent it calls for documents that are either equally available to the Plaintiff and/or are in the possession, custody or control of third parties, and not JLRNA.

This request, as phrased, is far too overbroad by asking Defendant to seek out and produce documents from other repair facilities who serviced the Vehicle. The Court will not compel further responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production, No. 8.

No. 9: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to Plaintiff’s request for refund of the price Plaintiff paid for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

JLRNA objects to this request to the extent the documents sought are subject to the attorney- client privilege, protected from disclosures by the attorney work product doctrine, and/or constitute JLRNA’s trade secrets and/or proprietary, confidential business information. JLRNA objects to this request to the extent it is overbroad, vague and ambiguous and calls for documents that are not relevant to the subject matter. JLRNA objects to this request to the extent it calls for documents that are either equally available to the Plaintiff and/or are in the possession, custody or control of third parties, and not JLRNA. JLRNA objects to this request on the basis that it is premature, as JLRNA continues to collect documents from third parties that may pertain to this litigation. JLRNA objects to this request to the extent it calls for premature expert opinion. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, JLRNA responds: JLRNA will produce CRC Case 8001076956. Discovery is continuing, and JLRNA reserves the right to supplement its response based upon further investigation.

This request for documents regarding Plaintiff’s request for a refund of the price Plaintiff paid is relevant to a Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claim, and is narrowly tailored. Defendant has not justified its objections.

The Court will compel a further response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, No. 9.

No. 10: All DOCUMENTS that reflect the warranty repair history of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

The Court finds good cause to compel a further response to No. 10, and that Defendant has not justified its same objections. The Court will compel a further response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, No. 10.

No. 11: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any CONTACT between YOU and Plaintiff.

No. 12: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any CONTACT with any PERSON, other than YOUR attorney, and relating or referring to Plaintiff to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

No. 13: All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe any CONTACT between YOU and any other PERSON, other than YOUR attorney, regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

Plaintiff seeks all documents that relate to contact between Defendant and Plaintiff, not limited to this action, this Vehicle, or any time period, and any contact with any person that refers to the Vehicle. The Court finds that the requests, as phrased, are significantly overbroad and the Court will not compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Nos. 11, 12, and 13.

No. 14: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to written or recorded statements from any PERSON concerning the SUBJECT VEHICLE or Plaintiff’s complaints concerning the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

Again, this request is overbroad as it seeks statements from any person without a timeframe. The Court will not compel a further response as to No. 14.

No. 15: Each written warranty provided by YOU for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

No. 16: Any DOCUMENT related in any way to determining whether repairs should be covered by YOUR warranty.

These requests are overbroad as they are not limited to the warranty at issue. The Court will not compel further responses to Nos. 15-16.

No. 17: All of YOUR warranty claims policy and procedure manual(s) from 2016 to the present.

The Court finds this request is overbroad as it does not relate to the vehicle or the warranty at issue in this matter. The Court will not compel a further response to No. 17.

No. 18: All DOCUMENTS which evidence describe, refer, or relate to YOUR rules, policies, or procedures since 2016 concerning the issuance of refunds to buyers or providing replacement vehicles to buyers in the State of California under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

The Court finds No. 18 is overbroad, and not reasonably tailored by types of documents within a particular timeframe, or limited to the subject vehicle, or any particular vehicle. The Court will not compel a further response to No. 18.

No. 19: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to procedures used by YOU for the handling of complaints by consumers regarding vehicles YOU manufactured or distributed.

JLRNA responds: JLRNA will produce the California Lemon Law Summary and the Standards of The California Lemon Law: Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Tanner Consumer Protection Act and responsive non-privileged documents subject to a protective order.

As such, this request is moot.

No. 20: All DOCUMENTS issued by YOU or on YOUR behalf which evidence or describe the policies, procedures, and/or instructions which YOUR employees and authorized agents should follow after a decision has been made by YOU to authorize either a refund of the purchase price, or a replacement vehicle, to YOUR customer.

JLRNA states it will produce the California Lemon Law Summary and the Standards of The California Lemon Law: Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Tanner Consumer Protection Act and responsive nonprivileged documents subject to a protective order.

As such, this request is moot.

No. 21: All DOCUMENTS issued by YOU or on YOUR behalf which evidence or describe policies, procedures, and/or instructions since 2016 that YOUR employees and agents should follow when evaluating a customer request for their money back or a replacement of a motor vehicle manufactured or distributed by YOU.

As such, this request is moot.

No. 22: All DOCUMENTS evidencing and/or describing YOUR training materials related to YOUR policy regarding how to calculate a repurchase.

This request is overbroad as it is without limitation as to whether the training materials at issue would apply to Plaintiff’s vehicle, during the time Plaintiff owned the vehicle, or to California consumers. The Court will not compel a further response to No. 22.

No. 23: All DOCUMENTS referencing, evidencing, and/or relating to YOUR policies, procedures, or guidelines for determining whether a vehicle is eligible for a vehicle repurchase.

This request is overbroad as it is without limitation as to whether the documents at issue would apply to Plaintiff’s vehicle, during the time Plaintiff owned the vehicle, or to California consumers. The Court will not compel a further response to No. 23.

No. 24: All DOCUMENTS referencing, evidencing, and/or relating to YOUR training material related to YOUR policy to encourage customers to give YOU another opportunity to repair their vehicles.

The request is overbroad as it seeks documents without limitation as to whether the training materials at issue would apply to Plaintiff’s vehicle, during the time Plaintiff owned the vehicle, or to California consumers. The Court will not compel a further response to No. 24.

No. 25: All DOCUMENTS referencing, evidencing, and/or relating to YOUR policy defining what constitutes a repair to determine eligibility for repurchase or replacement in California.

This request is overbroad as it is without limitation as to whether the training materials at issue would apply to Plaintiff’s vehicle, and during the time Plaintiff owned the vehicle. The Court will not compel a further response to No. 25.

No. 26: All DOCUMENTS issued by YOU or on YOUR behalf which evidence or describe policies, procedures and/or instructions since 2016 which YOUR authorized repair facilities should follow regarding customer requests for a refund of the price paid for a vehicle or a replacement vehicle.

The request is overbroad as it seeks documents without limitation as to whether they would apply to Plaintiff’s vehicle, during the time Plaintiff owned the vehicle, or to California consumers. The Court will not compel a further response to No. 26.

No. 27: All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe YOUR Lemon Law Escalation Process.

This request is overbroad, as it seeks documents without limitation to the subject vehicle, the timeframe Plaintiff owned the vehicle, or application to vehicles in California. The Court will not compel a further response to No. 27.

No. 28: All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe YOUR call center escalation process.

No. 29: All DOCUMENTS which evidence any predictive model used to determine if one of Defendant’s vehicles is a candidate for escalation.

No. 30: All DOCUMENTS any CONSULTANT provided YOU from 2010 to present that are related in any way to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

This request is overbroad, as it seeks documents without limitation to the subject vehicle, or the timeframe Plaintiff owned the vehicle. The Court will not compel a further response to No. 29.

No. 31: All DOCUMENTS evidencing any policies, procedures, or guidelines provided by YOU to any agency regarding what constitutes a substantial nonconformity under the Song-Beverly Act from 2016 to present.

This request is overbroad, as it seeks documents without limitation to the subject vehicle, or the timeframe Plaintiff owned the vehicle. The Court will not compel a further response to No. 30.

No. 32: All DOCUMENTS evidencing or describing statistics for the number of repurchases and replacements Defendant has made in California in response to consumers’ personal requests (i.e. a consumer without an attorney) from 2016 to present.

No. 33: All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe the numbers of owners 2017 Jaguar XF vehicles who have complained of any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.

No. 34: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to all Technical Service Bulletins (“TSBs”) which have been issued for 2017 Jaguar XF vehicles, including, but not limited to, complete copies of all such Technical Service Bulletins that involve any part, component, sub- component, system, assembly, or sub-assembly for which the SUBJECT VEHICLE was subject to one or more repair attempts as reflected in YOUR Warranty Claim Records, or in the repair orders produced during discovery in this case.

No. 35: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to all Recalls which have been issued for 2017 Jaguar XF vehicles that involve any part, component, sub-component, system, assembly, reflected in YOUR Warranty Claim Records or in the repair orders produced during discovery in this case.

No. 36: All DOCUMENTS which describe or discuss above-average repair rates to 2017 Jaguar XF vehicles.

Plaintiff’s motion does not explain how documents regarding investigation into alleged defects or knowledge about alleged defects on other vehicles will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding Plaintiff’s vehicle. Request Nos. 32-36 are entirely overbroad as this is not a class action matter. Moreover, No. 32 is not even limited to the model of the subject vehicle. Nos. 32 and 34-36 also seek complaints about defects that are not present in the subject vehicle. The Court will not compel further responses to Nos. 32-36.

No. 37: All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe sales brochures, literature or any other promotional materials provided or distributed by YOU regarding vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

Plaintiff has not explained how this is relevant. Plaintiff is not alleging fraud, false advertising, or any allegations whatsoever referring to advertising. The Court will not compel further response to No. 37.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. It is granted as to Request Nos. 5, 7, 9-10, and otherwise denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.