Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 24STCV07507, Date: 2024-12-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV07507    Hearing Date: December 30, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 12-30-24

Case #: 24STCV07507

Trial Date: 6-30-25

FURTHER DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Verneshia Ingram

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Verneshia Ingram alleges a Jaguar Land Rover Velar vehicle suffers from defects in the electronic system impacting connectivity and vehicle monitoring.

On March 25, 2024, plaintiff filed a complaint against Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC 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(B). Defendant answered the complaint on April 24, 2024.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff Verneshia Ingram moves to compel further responses to request for production of documents (set one), numbers 1-31. Plaintiff maintains the objections lack merit and demonstrate a lack of good faith. Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (Jaguar) in opposition reiterates the validity of the relevance, overbroad and burdensome objections. Jaguar also maintains third party privacy objections. Plaintiff in reply maintains it seeks relevant information, the inadequacy of the 1,093 pages of production, unsupported objections,

The court notes the statement in the declaration of Robert Cho regarding the production of Bates Stamped JLRNA 00001- 01093, and purportedly attached as Exhibit A. [Declaration of Robert Cho, ¶ 3.] The filed declaration lacks any such documents, or a reference date of purported production. The opposition also lacks a responsive separate statement, thereby potentially facilitating any such resolution. Even if the documents were in fact presented to the court, the court declines to undertake the review of all 1,000+ pages of documents for purposes of determining compliance. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408–409.)

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 court generally adheres to a policy limiting discovery to the make, model and year. The court declines to allow open ended broad based discovery spanning multiple years, and other makes and models under the Jaguar umbrella of vehicles regardless of any potential shared parts, common issues/defects, etc. In ordering discovery, the court seeks adjudication on the applicable vehicle, 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. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224–225.)

Normally, the court lists all items, but given the 31 individual items, the routine nature of a number of them, and the boilerplate nature of the objections, the court broadly addresses the items with special attention where considered necessary. With these criteria stated, the court finds the relevance objections, form of question, burdensome, equally available, and premature expert opinion, objections lack merit and support in either the objections themselves or opposition. The requests are specifically limited to vehicle information. Objections to information regarding Jaguar’s own answer to the complaint indicates a disingenuous effort and intentionally obstreperous conduct.

“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.) Defendant may not intentionally misconstrue a work for obstreperous purposes. “[W]here 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.) “[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.” (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418.) Plaintiff must provide information as to the foundation of the claim and distinguish information actually within the realm of experts. (See Bloxham v. Saldinger (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729, 751-752.) The equally available objection in no way

excepts Jaguar from production of documents in its possession and improperly assumes Plaintiff remains in possession. (Bunnell v. Sup.Ct. (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 720, 723–724.)

Notwithstanding, the court finds numbers nine (9), 13, and 14, regarding communications regarding the subject vehicle and/or with Plaintiff arguably constitute an overbroad request in that the broad base of the demand potentially oversteps the scope of the warranty based Song-Beverly Act foundation of the action. The court also finds numbers 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 regarding protocols, call center policies, and “substantially similar complaints” regarding any and all vehicles, overbroad as phrased. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224–225.)

Notwithstanding review of the purported Bates Stamped JLRNA 00001- 0109, presumably after the filing of the motion, Jaguar is ordered to produce further responses to numbers 1-8, 10-12, and 31. The parties are ordered to meet and confer on numbers 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 within 15 days of this order. The court assumes familiarity between counsel, and invites the parties to further meet and confer in order to refine database search terms to items, such as trouble codes, reports, similar defect reports and recalls, etc. All search terms must directly relate to the claims in the subject action subject vehicle model and year only. Production shall occur no later than 30 days after the lapse of the meet and confer period. On the privilege objections, at minimum, Jaguar must provide a privilege log to each and every withheld item. (Code Civ. Proc. 2031.240, subd. (c).)

If necessary, the court can appoint a discover referee in order to facilitate any extensive review required of the thousands pages of documents. Plaintiff makes no request for sanctions. Sanctions otherwise start at $1,000 per motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.050, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Motion to compel person most knowledgeable deposition for May 19, 2025.

Plaintiff to give notice.