Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 23STCV23402, Date: 2024-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV23402, Date: 2024-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23402 Hearing Date: August 19, 2024 Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 8-19-24

Case #: 23STCV23402

Trial Date: 1-21-25

FURTHER DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Donald Stephenson

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Donald Stephenson alleges a 2020 Mercedes-Benz GT63C4S vehicle suffers from certain defects not repaired by Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Express Warranty of Merchantability, and Violation of the Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Implied Warranty, and Negligent Repair. On June 21, 2023, FCA US LLC answered the complaint.

RULING: Granted

Evidentiary Objections: Overruled,

Plaintiff Donald Stephenson moves to compel further responses to request for production of documents (set one), numbers 1-3, 7, 11, 18-21, and 30-31. Plaintiff alleges unmeritorious objections. Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC in opposition counters that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently meet and confer, the requests are overbroad and improper, lack relevance, burdensome, and disregards the otherwise proper responses. Plaintiff in reply reiterates the lack of substantive, code compliant responses to the core claims,

The subject items request:

1. All DOCUMENTS regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE that are within YOUR Customer Relations Center. “SUBJECT VEHICLE” shall mean the vehicle which is the subject of this lawsuit and identified as the 2020 Mercedes-Benz GT63C4S, bearing VIN: WDD7X8KB1LA015103.

2. All DOCUMENTS which evidence, support, refer, or relate to each of the affirmative defenses as set forth in YOUR Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

3. All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any inspection of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

7. Produce all DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to all diagnostic trouble codes that are electronically stored by YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility as result of any inspections or repairs conducted on the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

11. Produce all DOCUMENTS that refer to or relate to any summaries of all amounts paid by YOU for warranty repairs performed on the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

18. All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to YOUR Policies and Procedures for determining whether a vehicle should be repurchased or replaced under the Song Beverly Act.

19. All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any flow charts used by YOU for the purpose of escalating customer complaints.

20. All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to any flow charts used by YOU for the purpose of evaluating whether a vehicle qualifies for repurchase or replacement under the Song-Beverly Act.

21. All DOCUMENTS evidencing and/or describing YOUR training materials related to YOUR policy regarding how to calculate a repurchase.

30. All DOCUMENTS, in the form of a list or compilation, of other Customer Complaints in YOUR electronically stored information of database(s) that are SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR to complaints made by Plaintiff with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE in other 2020 MercedesBenz GT63C4S vehicles. “SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR” shall mean similar customer complaint that would be the same nature of the reported system, malfunction, trouble code, Technical Service Bulletin Recommendation, dashboard indicator light, or other manifestation of a repair problem, as description listed in any warranty summary or repair order for the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [The customer complaints in this matter can be found in Defendant’s warranty history/summary and within the line items of the repair orders created at Defendant’s authorized repair facility. If YOU are having issues determining Plaintiff’s Complaints, Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer and list out the specific complaints and the language used to describe them. This should not include any routine or scheduled maintenance items.].

31. All DOCUMENTS that refer to, reflect, or relate to any Field Service Action issued, or in the process of being issued, in response to complaints experienced by Plaintiff as described in Defendant’s warranty history/summary and within the line items of the repair orders created at Defendant’s authorized repair facility.

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 case, 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,

consistent with California law, 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 a robust exchange of information and 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 exercise their discretion in taking different approaches. The court in no way seeks to invite comparisons with other courtrooms. The court only notes its reasoning behind its policy.

The court finds the meet and confer effort sufficient. [Declaration of Luis Serrano, Ex. G.] The court limits discovery to the make, model, year, and types of defects of the subject vehicle. The court declines to allow open-ended, broad-based discovery. The court does not seek to facilitate creation of databases for Plaintiff’s firms to use each and every defective vehicle claim to conduct discovery into all manufactured vehicles categorized by defect. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224–225.) Under this criteria, the court addresses the objections.

The form of question objections lack merit. Defendant understands the call of the request and appears to object for obstreperous purposes. “Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 superseded by statute on unrelated ground as stated in Guzman v. General Motors Corp. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 438, 444.)

“But ‘[f]or discovery purposes, information is relevant if it “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement….” [Citation.] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation.] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery [citation], and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases. [Citation.]’ (Citations.)” (Cruz v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 646, 653–654.) Again, the discovery is limited to make, model, year, and defects.

The challenged equally available objection lacks support. The court cannot determine what information in support of the answer filed by Mercedes-Benz remains equally available. (Bunnell v. Sup.Ct. (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 720, 723–724.)

On the oppressive, and harassing objections, objecting parties must file evidence detailing the amount of work involved, in order to support objections based upon burden and oppression. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) “[S]ome burden is inherent in all demands for discovery. The objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice.” (Id. at p. 418.)

The court finds no support for a blanket objection to any and all production-based objection as to make, model, year and SPECIFIC DEFECT relative to the subject vehicle. [See Declaration of Nicholas Cinquepalmi.] The court finds the represented required manual search questionable in that the declaration in absolutely no way acknowledges or references any possibility of computer-based database search capability function. If Mercedez-Benz elects to double down on manual search as the sole and exclusive basis of challenging production, and the sole and exclusive source of any and all defects indexed to make, model, year, and type of defect, the court would request deposition testimony from the Person Most Knowledgeable or Qualified testifying under oath and certifying the transcript that Mercedez-Benz lacks any computerized data system and inability to conduct computer based search function.

It otherwise remains unclear whether and what information has been provided relative to the same alleged defects within the same year, make and model. Plaintiff specifically references the Xentry system, which Mercedes-Benz apparently ignores. The court declines to engage in granular determination of specific source information at this stage. To the extent Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC represents documents were produced, Mercedes-Benz must both identify the responsive documents as to each category, also account for each and every document and category withheld on ANY basis of privilege within a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c).)

The motion is therefore GRANTED as provided by make, model, year, and defects, subject to verification of produced documents in response and a privilege log for withheld information. Again, if Mercedez-Benz continues to represent multiple hundreds of hours search due to exclusive manual required search and a lack of any computer-based functionality, the court will consider staying enforcement of the motion pending the PMK/PMQ deposition and presentation of the testimony in a certified transcript. If this is the chosen path, the court will also consider reserving a new hearing date for the parties in order to preserve the motion deadlines. Otherwise, the court invites the parties to consider database keyword search term negotiations. All other production, including the privilege log, to otherwise occur in the next 30 days.

The minimum amount of sanctions for a 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 Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and counsel and payable within 30 days of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.050, subd. (a)(1), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Continued discovery may lead to increasing sanctions, or escalate to issue and evidentiary sanctions, especially for intentionally obstreperous conduct necessitating burdensome demands from Plaintiff and the court.

Plaintiff to give notice.