Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV18013, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV18013 Hearing Date: April 12, 2024 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: April 12, 2024 TRIAL
DATE: October 22, 2024
CASE: Michelle Bernardino et al. v. American
Honda Motor Co.
CASE NO.: 22STCV18013 
MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE)
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Michelle and Anthony Bernardino.
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant American
Honda Motor Co.
CASE
HISTORY:
·
06/01/22: Complaint filed.
·
01/24/23: First Amended Complaint filed.
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is a lemon law action filed on June 1, 2022. Plaintiffs purchased a
2019 Honda Pilot which they allege developed defects in the infotainment,
electrical, transmission, and engine systems.
Plaintiffs move to compel further
responses to requests for production (set one) propounded to Defendant.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED.
Defendant is ordered to produce
verified, code-compliant responses without objections to the requests as
propounded within 30 days of this order.
DISCUSSION:
Plaintiffs move to compel further
responses to requests for production (set one) propounded to Defendant.
Legal Standard
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), a court
may order a party to serve a further response to a demand for inspection when
the court finds that: “(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is
incomplete[;] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate,
incomplete, or evasive[; or] (3) An objection in the response is without merit
or too general.”
The burden is on the moving party to “set forth specific facts showing
good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) These facts must also be set forth in a separate
statement filed by the moving party. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c).) This
burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins.
Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)
Timeliness
A motion to compel further
responses to requests for production must be served “within 45 days of the
service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on
or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding
party have agreed in writing.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).) The 45-day
requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997)
58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)
Following an Informal Discovery
Conference on January 18, 2024, the Court ordered pursuant to a stipulation by
the parties that Plaintiffs would have until March 18, 2024, to file motions to
compel on any outstanding discovery issues. (January 18, 2024 Minute Order.)
The instant motion was filed and served on that date. The motion is therefore
timely.
Meet and Confer
A party making a motion to compel further responses must also include a
declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to
resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion.
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)
The Declaration of Hannah Theophil
in support of the motion sets forth the extensive history of Plaintiffs’
attempts to informally resolve this dispute, including several meet-and-confer
letters, and an informal discovery conference. (See Declaration of Hannah
Theophil ISO Mot. ¶¶ 29-38 Exhs. 10-13.) Plaintiffs have satisfied their
statutory meet and confer obligations.
//
//
Good Cause
Plaintiffs move to compel further
responses to requests for production (set one) propounded to Defendant.
Specifically, Plaintiffs seek further responses to Requests Nos. 1, 2, 7, 12,
22, 25, 27, 29, 40, 43, 46, 49, 51, 53, 63, 64, 67, 69, 72, 74, 76, 86, 87, 90,
119, 125, 135, 137, 142, 146, 151, 157, 168-72, 174-78, 180-84, and 186-94.
1.
Subject Vehicle Discovery (Requests Nos. 1, 2,
7, and 12.)
Requests Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 12 seek
various documents in Defendant’s physical or electronic possession, custody, or
control pertaining to the subject vehicle (Theophil Decl. Exh. 7 Nos. 1, 2, and
7) or to the infotainment system installed in the subject vehicle. (No. 12.) Requests
Nos. 1, 2, and 7 are facially relevant to this action and Plaintiffs have thus
shown good cause for these requests.
As to No. 12, evidence of special
service bulletins predating purchase of a defective vehicle and evidence of
similar defects in other vehicles are both relevant and admissible. (Donlen
v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 153.) Admissible evidence is
discoverable. (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53
Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117-18.) Documents regarding warranty complaints, service
histories, and employee records concerning a defect in all affected vehicles,
as well as documents regarding the manufacturer’s responses and instructions to
cure that defect are discoverable. (See Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc.
(2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 971 [holding that the trial court’s approval of a
discovery referee’s report and recommendation of sanctions for failure to
produce documents of this nature relating to the subject defect in all affected
vehicles was not an abuse of discretion].)
Defendant
contends that Donlen and Doppes are both distinguishable from the
present case: Donlen because the issue was whether the plaintiff’s
expert testimony regarding defects in and special service bulletins relating to
other vehicles was inadmissible, rather than production of documents relating
to these issues (Donlen, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at 138), and Doppes
because that case was also an action for fraud, and the manufacturer did not
challenge the discovery referee’s findings. (Doppes, supra, 174
Cal.App.4th at 973-74, 993.) Defendant is correct that these cases are
factually distinguishable, but the Court disagrees with Defendant that these
cases do not support the position that the documents sought are relevant and
admissible. In Doppes, the Court of Appeal expressly stated that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the discovery referee’s
report and recommendation. (Doppes, supra, at 971.) Further, expert
testimony as in Donlen regarding documentary evidence must necessarily
have a foundation in that evidence to be admissible. (Cooper v. Takeda
Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 555, 577.) Documentary evidence on which an expert is
testifying must therefore be discoverable. (Glenfed, supra, 53
Cal.App.4th at 1117-18.)
Here, Plaintiff
seeks documentary evidence relating to the types of issues directly addressed
in both decisions. The Court therefore finds that good cause exists for Request
No. 12 as well.
2.
Internal Knowledge & Investigation Discovery
(Nos. 22, 25, 27, 29, 40, 43, 46, 49, 51, 53, 63, 64, 67, 69, 72, 74, 76,
86, 87, 90, and 186- 194)
These requests seek various
documents, including internal investigations, emails, warranty databases, field
reports, and customer complaints concerning vehicles of the same year, make,
and model as the subject vehicle, or which share the same systems that are
alleged to be defective. (See, e.g., Theophil Decl. Exh. 7. No. 22.) Materials
relating to similar problems experienced by vehicles of the same year, make,
and model as the subject vehicle are discoverable. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co.,
217 Cal.App.4th at pp. 143-44.) By the
same reasoning, materials relating to problems in the same system across
different vehicles are likewise discoverable. The Court therefore finds that
Plaintiff has shown good cause for these requests.
3.
Summary Documents and Deposition Testimony (Nos.
119, 125, 135, 137, 142, and 146.)
These requests seek materials
pertaining to internal summaries, evaluations, and reporters concerning defects
in the systems installed in Defendant’s vehicles which are alleged to be
defective. (See, e.g., Theophil Decl. Exh. 7 No. 119.) For the reasons stated
above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for these requests.
4.
Policies and Procedures (Nos. 151, 157)
Requests Nos. 151 and 157 seek
materials concerning Defendant’s lemon law, warranty, and recall policies and
procedures. These materials are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s Song-Beverly
claims. (See, e.g., Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc. (1994) 23
Cal.App.4th 174, 186.) Plaintiff has therefore shown good cause for these
requests.
5.
Communications with Agencies and Suppliers (Nos.
168-72, 174-78, 180-84.)
These requests seek materials
pertaining to communications with other entities regarding the defects
discussed above. (See, e.g., Theophil Decl. Exh. 7 No. 168.) For the reasons
stated above, these materials are relevant and admissible and are therefore
discoverable. Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for these requests.
Defendant’s Responses
Defendant responded to each request
with substantively identical boilerplate objections for vagueness and
ambiguity, irrelevance, overbreadth, undue burden and harassment, confidentiality,
and privilege, followed by a unilateral narrowing of the scope of the request.
Defendant does not address its undue burden, harassment, confidentiality, or
privilege objections in its opposition and the Court therefore finds them
without merit.
Defendant asserts that the
definitions employed for Plaintiffs’ requests as to “Infotainment Defect,”
“Engine Defect,” and “Transmission Defect” are overly broad and ambiguous. Plaintiffs’
requests defined these terms as follows:
The
term “INFOTAINMENT DEFECT(S)” shall be understood to mean such defects which
result in symptoms, including, malfunction and/or failure of the infotainment
screen and/or infotainment system; malfunction and/or failure of the radio,
backup camera, and/or navigation system; symptoms requiring update and/or
reprogramming of radio and/or infotainment system; failure and/or malfunction
of the radio; screen glitches, blank and or black; and/or any similar concern
identified in the repair history for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
The term “ENGINE DEFECT(S)” shall be
understood to mean such defects which result in symptoms including loss of
power; rough running; engine misfires; loss of coolant and/or oil; low coolant
and/or oil; failure and/or malfunction of the engine, cylinder, long block,
and/or engine components; failure and/or replacement of fuel pump and/or fuel
joint pipe; starter failure and/or failure to start; and/or any other similar
concern identified in the repair history for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
The term “TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S)” shall
be understood to mean such defects that result in symptoms, including
hesitation and/or delayed acceleration; harsh and/or hard shifting; jerking,
shuddering, and/or juddering; symptoms requiring reprogramming the transmission
control module (TCM) and/or powertrain control module (PCM); failure and/or
replacement of the valve body; failure and/or replacement of the transmission;
and/or any other similar concern identified in the repair history for the
SUBJECT VEHICLE.
(Theophil Decl. Exh. 7 Definitions Nos. 6-8.) The Court
disagrees with Defendant. These terms are not overly broad for the purpose of
discovery nor are they so vague that Defendant is unable to intelligibly
respond.
The remainder of Defendant’s
objections claim overbreadth or irrelevance on the basis that discovery not
pertaining directly to the subject vehicle is improper. The Court rejects these
contentions and finds Defendant’s objections to be without merit for the
reasons stated above. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order compelling
further responses without objections to these requests.
//
//
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is
GRANTED.
Defendant
is ordered to produce verified, code-compliant responses without objections to
the requests as propounded within 30 days of this order.
Moving
Party to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 12, 2024 ___________________________________
Theresa
M. Traber
Judge
of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the
tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day
before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It
should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still
conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you
have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you
should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an
order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.