Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV12267, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12267    Hearing Date: October 8, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 10-8-24

Case #: 23STCV12267

Trial Date: 6-23-24 c/f 10-7-24

FURTHER DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Esdras Hernandez

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

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Esdras Hernandez alleges an unidentified American Honda Motor Co., Inc. vehicle suffers from unspecified defects.

On June 14, 2023, plaintiff filed a complaint against General Motors LLC for 1. Fraud Concealment and Misrepresentation; 2. Negligent Misrepresentation 3. Business & Professions Code §17200 4. Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – Breach of Express Warranty; 5. Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – Breach of Implied Warranty; 6. Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – Civil Code §1793.2(B). On October 26, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer to the complaint with 20 days leave to amend.

On May 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – Breach of Express Warranty, Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – Breach of Implied Warranty; and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – Civil Code §1793.2. On June 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 170.6 challenge to Department 12, thereby leading to reassignment to Department 68. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. answered the first amended complaint on July 5, 2023.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff Esdras Hernandez moves to compel further responses to request for production of documents (set one), numbers 10, 14, 23, 24, 33, 37, 46, 47, 56, 60, 69, and 70. Plaintiff maintains the objections lack merit and demonstrate a lack of good faith. Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) in opposition challenge the form of question, the relevance to the Song-Beverly claims, especially the civil penalties portion of the complaint, and represents an inability to produce documents. Plaintiff in reply maintains to rightfully seeking relevant information.

Due to the increasing volume of filed Lemon Law cases in this courtroom and presumably countywide, including the increasing number of motions to compel further responses, particularly for 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.

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.)

The subject motion constitutes the second motion to compel further responses to at least some of the same set of discovery. The first motion to compel further responses was continued with an order to further meet and confer on November 16, 2023. On November 17, 2023, the court entered the stipulated protective order. On August 16, 2024, the court entered the parties’ stipulation to continue the trial. Honda repeatedly references a “January, [?] 2024” bifurcation of issues whereby the “civil penalties” portion of the claim is held in “abeyance.” Honda then follows that any and all of the subject items exclusively apply to said “civil penalty” claims, thereby justifying no further responses. Neither party addresses the propriety and timing of the motion.

The court finds no basis for the representation of “bifurcation” and “abeyance” of the civil penalties claims on the court docket in January 2024, or anywhere else in the entire electronic filing system. Even if the court assumed the existence of said order/stipulation/agreement, the court cannot determine a significant distinction between the civil penalties claims and the Song-Beverly addressed defects for purposes of establishing discovery guidelines. Thus, contrary to the arguments of Honda, the court finds the subject defects part of the “actionable” claims for Song-Beverly relief, and rejects any challenge to the validity to conduct discovery.

While the complaint lacks any and all identifying information as to the vehicle or subject defect(s), the parties are apparently aware of the disputed vehicle and alleged defects. The identified items are summarized as follows: Documents, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any field technical reports regarding warranty parts replacement trends, common parts failures, suggested repair procedures for commonly observed problems, and information relating to repeat repair failures, as to electrical and suspension defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

The court generally adheres to a policy limiting discovery to the make, model and year, which Plaintiff already conforms to in the applicable items. Nevertheless, the court declines to allow open ended broad based discovery spanning operating systems based on potential shared parts, common issues/defects, inapplicable issues with other vehicles not part of the subject claims, etc. The court seeks to promote adjudication on the applicable vehicle, through narrowly tailored document production, and discourages discovery practices intended to facilitate the creation of databases for Plaintiff’s firms to document every defective vehicle across a fleet of manufactured vehicles. The requests as phrased, while seeking relevant information, are impermissibly overbroad and require further refinement. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224–225.)

Again, given the presumed awareness of the claimed defects by counsel, the court orders the parties to further meet and confer in order to refine inquiry terms. Whether expert consultation and/or a PMQ deposition is required first to determine the basis for the systemic issues or not remains at the discretion of the parties. Given the electronic storage focus of the sought after items, the parties may agree to search terms, such as trouble codes, reports, similar defect reports indexed by reported issue(s), etc. All search terms must directly relate to the claims in the subject action regarding the specific electrical and suspension system defects indexed to vehicle model, make, and year only.

The meet and confer effort shall begin within 15 days of this order, and production to occur within 30 days after the lapse of the meet and confer period barring an agreement for further expert consultation or PMQ deposition first. Honda is ordered to produce a privilege log for any withheld items. (Code Civ. Proc., 2031.240, subd. (c).) If Honda continues to maintain no applicable documents upon further discussion and agreement to terms, or refuses to agree to terms, Plaintiff may seek appointment of a discovery referee, whereby the court will consider appointment of a discovery referee to conduct a robust review of each and every disputed word, term, document, phrase, privilege, etc. submitted by Honda and demonstrative of obstreperous conduct. The order can vest the arbitrator with authority to award sanctions in favor of the moving party, and an allocation of fees.

The motion is GRANTED in its entirety. Honda is ordered to produce further responses to numbers to all items upon further meet and confer efforts.

Plaintiff makes no request for sanctions.

Trial remains set for Jun 23, 2025.

Plaintiff to give notice.