Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV45674, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45674    Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: 39

Ricardo Duran v. FCA US, LLC

Case No. 21STCV45674

Motion to Compel Further Responses

            The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion in part and denies Plaintiff’s motion in part.  Defendant shall produce the following documents, to the extent Defendant has not done so already:

1.                  Purchase and/or lease contract concerning the subject vehicle.

2.                  Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

3.                  Communications with dealer, factory representative and/or call center concerning the subject vehicle.

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

5.                  Any Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the date the subject vehicle was purchased to the present.

6.                  Any internal analysis, investigation, and/or communications regarding the same defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles of the same year, make and model as the subject vehicle which were sold within the State of California.

7.                  Any customer complaints regarding the same defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles of the same year, make and model as the subject vehicle which were sold within the State of California.

8.                  All policies and/or procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date of purchase to the present.

9.                  Technical Service Bulletins and/or Recall Notices regarding the same defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles of the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle which were sold within the State of California.

10.              Any documents supporting plaintiff’s claim for incidental and/or consequential damages.

The Court overrules Defendant’s objection to the term “Stalling Defect,” as disagrees with Defendant’s characterization of this term as “nonsensical,” because Plaintiff’s counsel has defined that term as meaning any defect that “causes stalling, loss of acceleration/deceleration, loss of power and/or loss of crankshaft position synchronization.”  Therefore, Defendant shall provide all responsive documents with respect to these alleged defects.

The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s argument that it would be unduly burdensome to provide substantive responses to the RPDs.  Defendant was required to provide evidence of “the quantum of work required . . . ,” along with evidence to show “that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought.”  Such evidence would include evidence of “the total man hours required to accomplish the task.”  (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.)  Defendant failed to do so.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1.         Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part.

2.         Defendant shall provide code-compliant responses, without objections, with sixty (60) days. 

3.         Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.