Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00808, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00808    Hearing Date: August 31, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 8-31-23

Case # 22CHCV00808

Trial Date: Not Set

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Maria Poso, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) numbers 18, 22-23, 26-30, 32, 45-46, and 48-49.

SUMMARY OF ACTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 20, 2021, Plaintiff Maria Poso, Darwin Robles, and Brenda Amaya “entered into a warranty contract” with defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. for their 2021 Honda Accord Vehicle. Plaintiffs alleges the vehicle suffers from unspecified defects, which defendants were unable to repair after a certain number of unspecified attempts. Plaintiff requested a new vehicle or repurchase.

On September 30, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – Breach of Express Warranty, and - Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – Breach of Implied Warranty. Defendant answered on November 18, 2022.

RULING: Granted in Part/Denied in Part/Moot in Part

Plaintiff Ismael Zamora moves to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) numbers 31-32, 34-37, and 39-41. The dispute involves the request for general categories of documents to which Plaintiffs allege that even after executing the stipulated protective order, Defendant responded with “general,” unmeritorious objections.

Defendant in opposition states that it already served 1,049 pages of documents regarding “the subject” 2021 Honda Accord. Defendant challenges the right to compel discovery of documents beyond the identified vehicle in that the Song Beverly Act only applies to the single defective vehicle.

Plaintiff in reply notes the supplemental responses were not served until after the filing of the motion, and therefore withdraws the motion as to numbers 18, 48-49. Plaintiffs maintain the supplemental responses to numbers 22-23, 26-30, and 45-46 remain in dispute. Plaintiffs challenge the objections, maintains their right to seek knowledge of defects on the vehicle mode and year, and at a minimum demand a privilege log for any claims of attorney client privilege documents. Plaintiffs contend defense counsel intentionally serves supplemental responses after the filing of the motion in order to further delay discovery. Plaintiffs maintain the responses to numbers 22-23, 26-30 remain non-code compliant in that privilege objections remain, and numbers 45-46 seek relevant information.

On May 16, 2023, the court entered the stipulated protective order of the parties. Production included after the protective order include … identification of repair instructions, all service bulletins, a search for applicable documents and promised production, or a lack of applicable documents.

The argument seeking to limit discovery relies on statutory interpretation of the Song-Beverly Act. “A plaintiff pursuing an action under the Act 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). (Civ.Code, § 1793.2; Ibrahim v. Ford Motor Co. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 878, 886–887, 263 Cal.Rptr. 64.)” (Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.)

Honda seeks to factually distinguish generally relied upon cases regarding discovery into model years and other impacted consumers. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 153-154 (Donlen); Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967 (Doppes).) Honda correctly argues that neither case directly addresses categories of discovery, but the Donlen court in fact found no error in the introduction of evidence regarding make and model year evidence presented to the jury, for at least in part, presentation of evidence regarding the existence of technical service bulletins of said impacted vehicles. The information regarding other vehicles was specifically incorporated as part of the consideration into the subject vehicle. (Donlen, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 154.) The court distinguishes Doppes on the other hand in that the court never even incidentally addresses the scope of discovery. The case focused on discovery sanctions, which are not at issue in the instant action. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 996-997.)

While the court appreciates Honda’s statutory understanding regarding the scope of the Song-Beverly Act, the court finds no basis for limiting inquiry into defects of just the individual vehicle. The alleged failings may reflect systemic issues impacting models by year (or even years depending on manufacturing and design updates), as well as reveal company policy and responses to said known problems. An argument can be made that the response only need address the subject vehicle, but the court still assumes such decisions like warranty repair guidelines, buybacks or replacements are not made in a vacuum of individual decisions. Said cumulative evidence and basis of decision making potentially reflects on good faith efforts in the repairs—a consideration in a lemon law claim. Even logically extending the argument to single vehicle isolated claims, if Honda actually adhered to such vehicle policy, such an argument raises further questions regarding the scope and necessity of company policies that would likely not otherwise exist regarding lemon law claims. No suggestion of this practice exists, and the court declines to consider this path. The context of other vehicles therefore remains relevant to adjudication of the claims. (Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc., supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 1104-1105.)

Due to the increasing volume of filed Lemon Law cases in this courtroom and presumably countywide, and the pending decisions from the California Supreme Court potentially impacting whether cases proceed to arbitration or remain in trial courts, this court generally adheres to certain, consistent guidelines for remaining cases: an approach allowing discovery into the relevant make and model year for all impacted systems or parts, without opening the door for a general inquiry into any and all lemon law claims filed against vehicle manufacturers for all makes and models. The goal is to facilitate robust adjudication of the case, without imposing any burden on defendant to determine the cause of the purported defects, while also allowing Plaintiff the opportunity to investigate. The court in no way doctrinally adheres to this policy. The court established this policy based on established practice standards common among counsel in this field. No doubt other courts may take different approaches. The court in no way seeks to invite comparisons. The court only notes its reasoning behind its policy.

On the specific requests, Plaintiffs seek information on the 2021 Honda Accord with regards to lemon law claims, including policy manuals for consumer complaints, valid claim determination and resolution procedures, as well as dealership franchise information. Honda in opposition maintains no responsive material exist as to numbers 22-23, 26-29, and 32. On numbers 18 and 30, Honda served additional responses, including either documents or a promise to produce further documents. On numbers 45-46, 48-49, Honda challenges the claim on grounds the request for other consumer complaints seeks information beyond the scope of claim (rejected, see above), and improperly seeks third party consumer information and/or agency resolution.

"Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is a matter best determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the circumstances of the case. In many cases involving untimely responses, the propounding party will take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions. If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however, the trial court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses  as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section 2030.300 and either determine that further answers are required, or order the propounding party to “meet and confer” (§ 2030.300, subd. (b)) and file a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1020(a)(2), (c)); or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion under section 2030.300." (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408–409.)

Plaintiffs voluntarily withdraw the motion on numbers 18, 48-49. The motion is therefore moot on these items.

For numbers 22-23, 26-29, and 32, notwithstanding the purported lack of material, Honda served additional supplemental responses after the filing of the subject motion affirming its lack of applicable documents. [Declaration of Ariane Sadanga, Ex. C, H.] Honda withdrew the majority of the objections, and the court finds the form of question and relevance objections without merit. Regardless, the response complies with the statutory requirements regarding the lack of said applicable items. The motion is moot as to the subject items and therefore denied.

For number 30, the court finds the promised production sufficiently complies pending further meet and confer, as deemed necessary. The motion is denied.

Finally, on numbers 45-46, the court rejects any arguments contrary to the guidelines regarding Plaintiffs’ entitlement to examine the make and model year. Honda only served supplemental responses to 48 and 49, which are moot either way.

For numbers 45-46, Honda presents numerous objections, but the opposition only focuses on the rejected arguments addressed at the beginning. As to Honda, the court disagrees with the description of the request as “class action level.”

Nevertheless, under the same guidelines provided above, the court limits production to complaints only regarding similar issues. Given the lack of ANY descriptive information regarding the nature of the alleged defect(s), the court orders the parties to further meet and confer. Any third party production may be addressed via either redacted file information or may be already covered under the protective order. Additionally, if Honda still maintains any privileges, and withholds applicable documents, Honda shall produce a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., 2031.240, subd. (c).) The motion is therefore granted as to the subject items subject to the guidelines provided.

In summary, the motion is moot and therefore denied on numbers 18, 22-23, 26-29, 32, and 48-49; denied as to number 30, pending production and further meet and confer, as necessary; and, granted as to numbers 45-46.

Sanctions in the amount of $250 imposed against Honda and counsel joint and several. Payable within 30 days.

Plaintiffs to give notice.