Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 23CHCV00081, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23CHCV00081, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV00081 Hearing Date: October 4, 2023 Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 10-4-23 c/f 9-25-23

Case #: 23CHCV00081

Trial Date: Not Set

FURTHER DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Rolando Urquidiez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Ford Motor Company

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Rolando Urquidieza alleges a 2019 certified pre-owned Ford F-150 vehicle suffers from a defective transmission. On January 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Violations of Civil Code section 1793.2, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment, Negligent Repair, Violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. On March 3, 2023, Galpin Motors, Inc. answered the complaint.

On May 2, 2023, the court overruled the demurrer of Ford Motor Company to the third cause of action for Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, and sustained the demurrer to the fifth cause of action for Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on June 20, 2023. On August 23, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer to the Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment with leave to amend. On September 15, 2023, Ford Motor Company Answered the remaining causes of action in the first amended complaint.

RULING: Denied in Part/Granted in Part.

Plaintiff Rolando Urquidiez moves to compel further responses to request for production of documents, numbers 1-3, 7, 12-13, 44, 47-48, 50, 52, 69, 83, 91, 96, 98, 120-121, 128, 130-131, and 144-148. The dispute involves the request for general categories of documents to which Plaintiff alleges unmeritorious objections.

Defendant in opposition challenges the separate statement, maintains the responses, some of which included objections to the 2908 categories of documents were appropriate, and the sought after discovery is overly broad and unreasonable, and Ford produced documents regarding subject model year of the vehicle and transmission, but declines to produce documents outside the year model to unrelated defects.

Plaintiff in reply reiterates the basis for production.

Plaintiff also filed evidentiary objections with the reply. Plaintiff’s request to strike the entire declaration of Jeffrey Push is denied. Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to the declaration of Jeffrey Push are overruled.

Plaintiff describes the categories of documents as follows: Numbers 1-3, 7, 13, 145-148, documents “concerning” the subject vehicle; numbers 44, 47, 48, 50, 52, 69, 144, documents regarding “internal knowledge” of engine defects, including summaries, memoranda, power point presentations; numbers 83 and 91, documents regarding engine defects in the form of summaries, memoranda, and power point presentations; number 96, 98, 99, policies on buybacks and procedures; numbers 120-121, 128, 130-131, documents regarding communications with governmental agencies and third party suppliers; and, number 132, documents regarding Ford Motor Company dealer agreements.

Under 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.)

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, with de rigueur motions to compel further document production, this court generally adheres to certain, consistent guidelines for its 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, including varying individual and potential system defects. 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 based on standards established and reviewed by practice and reviewed at least in party by appellate courts. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 153-154; Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc., supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 1104-1105.) No doubt other courts may take different approaches. The court in no way seeks to invite comparisons with other courtrooms. The court only notes its reasoning behind its policy.

On the specific requests, the court limits discovery to the make and model year, 2019 F-150, with further limitation to the transmission defect, as exclusively and particularly alleged in the complaint. Discovery shall include defect information related to the vehicle itself specifically identified by vehicle identification number. While the fraud claim is no longer part of the action, the court still finds the policy behind lemon law claims entitles Plaintiff to information about vehicle transmission defects without objections over the form of request for purposes of obstreperous withholding of information.

Notwithstanding the guidelines, the court finds the justification for certain items questionable given the offer to produce documents, the lack of any clarification regarding whether said production occurred, a legal basis beyond the dismissed fraud cause of action, and/or any additional factual basis for production. The court specifically finds the offer to produce documents relative to the make, model, specific vehicle, regarding the transmission sufficiently complies as to numbers 1, 2, 7, 13, 44, 47, 48, 69, 83, 91, 120, 144, 145, 146, 147, and 148.

The court finds the objections to numbers 50, 52, 121, 128, 130, and 131, valid on grounds of overbroad, insufficiently defined parameters. On number 99, the request seeks information beyond the defined scope of the action. On number 132, the court finds a lack of justification for dealership agreement information given the lack of any challenge regarding arbitration and the lack of any remaining punitive damages claim with the discharge of the fraud claim. Numbers 145, 146, 147 and 148, also lacks justification beyond the agreed upon production based upon a non-existent punitive damages claim.

On numbers 120 the court also cannot determine from the motion how the publicly available information regarding consumer reports as to Ford vehicles requires production from Ford in the information is equally available. (Bunnell v. Sup.Ct. (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 720, 723–724.)

The court also notes that even though the operative complaint only alleges transmission defects, Ford also apparently provided documents regarding related “engine defects” apparently relative to the transmission. The court therefore accepts the definition and parameters established barring a more concisely, specifically articulated, factually supported basis justifying the otherwise general term of “engine defect.”

On number 13, the court also finds the request overly broad, especially given the lack of a fraud claim. On numbers 44 and 47 the court declines to consider the supplemental declaration of Jeffrey Push or the objections and second set of points and authorities challenging the declaration. The court finds the term “engine defects” overbroad, especially relative to the transmission claim (see numbers 48, 50, 52). The court also agrees that the term “all documents” constitutes a vastly overbroad term. The motion lacks sufficient support regardless of the supplemental opinions and objections.

On numbers 3, 96, and 98, the court finds the request justified relative to the established parameters in that Lemon Law claims allow a party to examine the basis of the defects, and procedures and considerations for repairs, repurchase or exchange related to the subject make, model and year. On numbers 96, 98, Ford needs to address internal documents rather than refer to publicly available website information.. Any documents potentially qualifying but not produced shall be articulated in a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc. 2031.240, subd. (c).)

The motion is therefore granted as to number 3, 96 and 98, and denied as to the remainder. The court invites Plaintiff to reexamine motions possibly filed prior to a change in the disposition of the action, and utilize the reply as an opportunity to update arguments possibly rendered moot, and inform the court of any potential production occurring after the filing of the motion.

Sanctions not requested by Ford, and denied as to Plaintiff given the vast majority of the argument denied.

Plaintiff to give notice.