Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV10884, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10884    Hearing Date: April 11, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 4-9-24 TBH 4-11-24

Case #: 23STCV10884

Trial Date: Not Set

FURTHER DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Reina Garcia

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendant, FCA US LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Reina Garcia alleges a 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicle suffers from unspecified defects. On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Express Warranty of Merchantability, and Violation of the Song-Beverly Act—Civil Code section 1793.2. On June 21, 2023, FCA US LLC answered the complaint.

RULING: Granted

Plaintiff Reina Garcia moves to compel further responses to request for production of documents, numbers 45-46. Plaintiff alleges unmeritorious objections. Plaintiff submitted a notice of non-opposition and the court electronic filing system shows no filed opposition at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

Number 45 states: All DOCUMENTS evidencing complaints by owners of the 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicle regarding any of the complaints that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented to YOUR or YOUR authorized repair facilities for repair during the warranty period.

Number 46 states: All DOCUMENTS evidencing warranty repairs to 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles regarding any of the components that YOU or YOUR authorized repair facilities performed repairs on under warranty.

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 notes the request already limits the request to the make and model, but the request lacks any indicated area of failure or attempted repair(s). The complaint itself lacks any information, though the court assumes the parties are familiar with the factual basis of the dispute. Assuming familiarity between the parties, the court still finds the general request for “warranty repairs” overbroad in that a warranty repair can cover any number of items well beyond the scope of the subject matter. As stated in the guidelines above, the court declines to allow open ended broad based discovery phrased like the subject items.

While it remains unclear whether and what information has been provided relative to the same alleged defects within the same year, make and model, the court orders FCA US LLC to provide responsive information in regards to the subject defect(s) for the make, model and year. If said documents were already produced, FCA US LLC may represent as such.

The unopposed motion is therefore GRANTED limited to the identified conditions within the make, model and year.

The minimum amount of sanctions for each motion to compel production of documents increased to $1,000 per motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.050, subd. (a)(1).) Sanctions in the amount of $1,000 joint and severally imposed against both counsel and FCA US and payable within 30 days of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.050, subd. (a)(1), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff to give notice.

Dept. 68

Date: 4-11-24

Case #: 23STCV10884

Trial Date: Not Set

FURTHER INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Reina Garcia

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, FCA US LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Reina Garcia alleges a 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicle suffers from unspecified defects. On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Express Warranty of Merchantability, and Violation of the Song-Beverly Act—Civil Code section 1793.2. On June 21, 2023, FCA US LLC answered the complaint.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff Reina Garcia moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories, numbers 45-48. Plaintiff alleges unmeritorious objections. Defendant in opposition challenges the sufficiency of the meet and confer effort, the overbroad nature of the requests without sufficient tailoring the alleged defects at issue, and challenges any recovery of sanctions. Plaintiff in reply reiterates the basis for production.

Number 45 states: At the time of release for the 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles, state your anticipated range for repairs per thousand vehicles sold (R/1000).

Number 46 states: State the repairs per thousand vehicles sold (R/1000) for 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles.

Number 47 states: Identify in order the five symptoms with the highest repairs per thousand (R/1000) for 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles, and the corresponding repairs per thousand.

Number 48 states: Identify in order the five components with the highest repairs per thousand (R/1000) for 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles, and the corresponding repairs per thousand.

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 notes the request already limits the request to the make and model, but the request lacks any indicated area of failure or attempted repair(s). The complaint also lacks any information, though the court assumes the parties are familiar with the factual basis of the dispute. Assuming familiarity between the parties, the court still finds the general request for “anticipated range of repairs,” “repairs,” “five symptoms,” or “components” “with the highest repairs” and “warranty repairs” overbroad in that a warranty repair can cover any number of items well beyond the scope of the subject matter. As stated in the guidelines above, the court declines to allow open ended broad based discovery phrased like the subject items.

While it remains unclear whether and what information has been provided relative to the same alleged defects within the same year, make and model, the court orders FCA US LLC to provide responsive information in regards to the subject defect(s) for the make, model and year. If said applicable responses were already produced in prior responses, FCA US LLC may represent as such.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.

Sanctions not requested by FCA US LLC, and denied as to Plaintiff. The court finds the scope of the requests overbroad and the objections valid. The court declines to impose sanctions based on the subject dispute.

Plaintiff to give notice.