Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 21VECV00495, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

Case Number: 21VECV00495    Hearing Date: September 6, 2022    Dept: T

Tentative Order:

Plaintiff moves to compel further written responses and production of documents in response to the 1st RFP. 

First and foremost, the court finds that YOU, YOUR AND DEFENDANT is defined overly broadly.  In the absence of more specific information who might be "all agents, representatives, assigns, successors, dealerships, individuals, and/or businesses who represent themselves to be affiliated with, or work for, FCA US LLC" which is vague and would be impossible to enforce, the court limits the definition to ONLY TO FCA US LLC.  This would be without prejudice to the plaintiff identifying further the additional persons or entities covered by the definition.

Second, all production is limited to documents concerning the 2019 Dodge Challengers only.

Third, all granted motions require a Verified Further Code Compliant response and production within 20 days.  Please see Discovery Act for specific language to be followed for document production.

Fourth, the court declines to enforce this language: "This request shall be interpreted to include any such investigation to determine the root cause of the _________ DEFECT, any such investigation to design a permanent repair procedure for the __________DEFECT, any such investigation into the failure rates of parts associated with “The internal e-mails demonstrating Chrysler’s awareness of the safety risk inherent in the bridge operation were sent in September 2013, and thus Chrysler was well aware of the problem when it performed the bridge operation on Santana’s vehicle. Thus, Chrysler’s duty to repurchase or provide restitution arose prior to the expiration of the three-year, 36,000 mile warranty.” (Santana, supra, at 347-48.) Finding that “contemporaneous e-mails” demonstrating that FCA had only developed a “‘MacGyver’ half measure that simply swaps defects” were sufficient to support a jury finding that FCA intentionally chose not fully to honor the express warranty and the imposition of civil penalty damages."  "

The actual language of the production request controls.  This part of the definition is vague and enforcement would be impossible.  Also, "root cause" nor "permanent repair procedure" are not defined.  The court will not speculate as to their meanings.

____________________________________________________________________________

RFP 16:  Grant.  The response is incomplete and is not Code Compliant.

RFP 17: Grant.  The response is incomplete and is not Code Compliant.

RFP 18:  Grant. The response is incomplete and is not Code Compliant.

RFP 19: Grant. The response is incomplete and is not Code Compliant.

RFP 20:  Denied.  The term “failure rates” is not defined and is vague.

RFP 21: Grant. The response is incomplete and is not Code Compliant.

RFP 22: Grant. The response is incomplete and is not Code Compliant.

RFP 23: Grant. The response is incomplete and is not Code Compliant.

RFP 24: Grant. The response is incomplete and is not Code Compliant.

RFP 25: Denied. Overly broad, not time limited. Databases is not defined.

RFP 26: Denied.  The term “failure rates” is not defined and is vague.

RFP 27: Grant. The response is incomplete and is not Code Compliant.

RFP 28: Grant. The response is incomplete and is not Code Compliant.

RFP 29: Grant. The response is incomplete and is not Code Compliant.

RFP 30:  Grant. The response is incomplete and is not Code Compliant.

RFP 31: Deny.

RFP 32: Denied.  Failure rates is undefined and vague.

RFP 33: Grant. The response is incomplete and is not Code Compliant.

RFP 88: Grant. The response is incomplete and is not Code Compliant.

RFP 89: Deny unless can show relevance to this vehicle.

RFP 90: Grant. The response is incomplete and is not Code Compliant.

RFP 91: Deny unless can show relevance to this vehicle.

RFP 92: Grant. The response is incomplete and is not Code Compliant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.