Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV18068, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18068    Hearing Date: February 27, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     February 27, 2023                 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Stephen Suh v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV18068           

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE)

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Stephen Suh

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a lemon law action filed June 1, 2022. Plaintiff alleges he purchased a 2019 Honda Odyssey which had electrical, transmission, and engine defects.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production propounded to Defendant.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED.

            Defendant is to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production served on Defendant.

Defendant’s Evidentiary Objections

            Defendant raises numerous evidentiary objections to the declaration of Rebecca Neubauer in support of the motion. Defendant cites no law requiring the Court to rule on objections in the context of a motion to compel further responses, rather than a motion for summary judgment or a special motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 437c; 425.16.) Further, the Court finds that Defendant’s objections are improper as they go to the weight of the evidence presented and not to its admissibility. To the extent that the Court relies on the evidence in the declaration, the Court will take the issues raised by Defendant into account.

Legal Standards

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.)

Defendant served its initial responses to the outstanding discovery requests on September 1, 2022. (Declaration of Rebecca Neubaer ISO Mot. ¶ 23.) Defendant then served supplemental responses on November 7, 2022, and December 19, 2022. (Id. ¶¶ 24-25.) This motion was filed on January 31, 2022, 43 days after the most recent set of supplemental responses were served. 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 Rebecca Neubauer provides extensive documentation of the parties’ meet and confer efforts between July 19, 2022 and the date this motion was filed. (Neubauer Decl. Exhs. 12-22.) Based on this showing, the Court finds Plaintiff has satisfied his statutory meet and confer obligations.

Good Cause

            Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 17, 20, 24-27, 32, 37, 40, 44, 48-51, 56, 61, 64, 85, 86, 100, 110, 120, 125-128, and 139.

            Request No. 1 seeks all documents regarding the subject vehicle that are maintained in Defendant’s databases, and specifies the form of production of the database entries as well as search terms for the database. This request is facially relevant to the allegations in the Complaint, and therefore good cause exists for this request.

            Request No. 17 seeks all pre-sale or pre-purchase documents that Defendant made available to purchasers or lessees of Honda Vehicles equipped with the same electrical system as the subject vehicle, and which reflect or refer to the disclosure of any problem or defect in those vehicles. This request is facially relevant to the allegations in the Complaint, and therefore good cause exists for this request.

            Requests Nos. 20, 24-27, 32, 37, 40, 85, 86, and 139 seek all documents, including ESI and emails, concerning internal analysis or investigation of transmission defects in vehicles equipped with the same transmission (No. 20); communications with other entities involved in root cause efforts, problem solving efforts, or identification efforts relating to Honda Vehicles equipped with the same transmission as the subject vehicle (No. 24), field reports, dealer contacts, and any customer or warranty claims or reports of failures regarding transmission defects in vehicles with the same transmission (No. 25); concerning when Honda engineers became aware of transmission defects in this class of vehicles (No. 26); concerning when any member of Defendant’s recall committee became aware of transmission defects in this class of vehicles (No. 27), concerning failure rates of this class of vehicles equipped with the same transmission system (No. 32), concerning any decision to issue any notices, recalls, or similar concerning the transmission defects in this class of vehicles (No. 37); concerning any decision to modify the transmission or any of its component parts in response to any defects (No. 40); internal presentations, assessments, or similar prepared by Defendant’s engineers concerning transmission defects in this class of vehicles (No. 85); internal presentations, assessments, or similar presented to any Vice President, quality control team member, or recall team member, concerning transmission defects in this class of vehicles (No. 86) and reflecting performance standards relating to the transmission in this class of vehicles. (No. 139.) Information 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. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143-44.) The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for these requests.

            Requests Nos. 44, 48-51, 56, 61, 64, and 100 seek similar documents concerning the electrical system of similar vehicles. These requests seek all documents, including emails and ESI, relating to internal analysis and investigation of the electrical defects (No. 44); communications with other entities involved in root cause efforts, problem solving efforts, or identification efforts relating to Honda Vehicles equipped with the same electrical system as the subject vehicle (No. 48); field reports, dealer contacts, and any customer or warranty claims or reports of failures regarding transmission defects in vehicles with the same electrical system (No. 49); concerning when Honda engineers became aware of electrical defects in this class of vehicles (No. 50); concerning when any member of Defendant’s recall committee became aware of electrical defects in this class of vehicles (No. 51), concerning failure rates of this class of vehicles equipped with the same electrical system (No. 56), concerning any decision to issue any notices, recalls, or similar concerning the electrical defects in this class of vehicles (No. 61); concerning any decision to modify the transmission (which the Court takes to mean, in context, the electrical system) or any of its component parts in response to any defects (No. 64); and internal presentations, assessments, or similar concerning electrical defects in this class of vehicles (No. 100). Again, information relating to similar problems experienced by vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle are discoverable. (Donlen, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at 143-44.) The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for these requests.

            Requests Nos. 110 and 120 seek training manuals or similar documents regarding any training given to Defendant’s employees since 2019 in connection with handling consumer lemon law repurchase requests (No. 110) and lemon law documents published by Defendant and provided to its employees. (No. 120). These documents are relevant on their face, as they go to Defendant’s refusal to repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle, and whether Defendant’s employees were specifically instructed to do so. The Court therefore finds good cause for these requests.

            Requests Nos. 125-128 seek documents concerning communications with government agencies and suppliers. Specifically, these requests seek all documents, including ESI and emails, regarding communications between Defendant and any government agency concerning transmission defects in this class of vehicles (No. 125); communications with and documents exchanged with the supplier of the type of transmission system at issue referring to an actual or suspected transmission defect (No. 126); early warning reports submitted by Defendant to NHTSA concerning this class of vehicles; (No. 127); and all Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation reports Defendant submitted concerning this class of vehicles. (No. 128). These requests are relevant under Donlen, as they go to Defendant’s knowledge of the claimed defects in Plaintiff’s vehicle before Plaintiff acquired the vehicle. (Donlen, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at 143-44.) The Court therefore finds good cause for these requests.

Defendant’s Responses

            As a threshold issue, Defendant raised numerous boilerplate objections to each of the requests at issue. Although Defendant withdrew some of the objections in its further responses, the responses maintained several of the same boilerplate objections which Defendant does not justify in its opposition papers. Specifically, Defendant makes no effort to justify any of its objections regarding trade secrets, responding on behalf of any other entity, privacy, or privilege. The burden is on Defendant to justify any failure to fully respond to these requests. (See Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221.) As Defendant has not done so, the Court finds these objections to also be without merit.

            Defendant also contends that the discovery sought is unduly burdensome, but offers no evidence showing the breadth of potentially responsive documents or the expected work hours required to fully respond to the requests at issue. Defendant has therefore failed to justify any objection to the requests as unduly burdensome.

            Further, Defendant asserts that requests Nos. 24, 26, 48, 50, 86, 100, and 139 were properly objected to because they were not reasonably particularized. However, Defendant provides no explanation for this contention with respect to its responses to these requests. Therefore, the Court likewise finds these objections to be entirely without merit.

            In response to Request No.1, Defendant stated that the request fails to describe the items sought with reasonable particularity, but produced a nonconfidential warranty history, and stated that additional documents would be produced pursuant to the entry of a protective order. Defendant justifies the limited response to the request as only producing documents that are “directly relevant” because there may be some documents that are “tangentially relevant.” Defendant does not justify its contention that this request is not reasonably particularized, and, indeed, a plain reading of the request demonstrates sufficient specificity that Defendant should be able to determine what is sought. Defendant’s response to this request is evasive and not code-compliant. A complete further response must be provided without objection.

            In response to Request No. 17, Defendant again asserts that the request fails to describe the items sought with reasonable particularity, and that the terms “problem, failures, malfunctions, and defects” are not adequately defined such that the request is ambiguous. Defendant also contends that the request is argumentative and irrelevant. These objections are not well-taken by the Court. The plain meaning of the terms “problem” “failure” and “malfunction” should be apparent to a sophisticated party such as Defendant. The Court also does not find that the request is argumentative, and it certainly does not lack sufficient particularity. Defendant’s objections are improper, and a further response must be provided without objection.

            In response to Request No. 20, Defendant limited the request to “symptoms for which the Subject Vehicle was presented to an authorized Honda repair facility” and stated it would produce two identified documents pursuant to a protective order. This response is evasive and not code-compliant. Defendant is not entitled to unilaterally limit its response to a request for production. Defendant is obligated to produce all documents that are responsive to the request as stated unless and until Defendant asserts a valid objection. Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further responses to this request.

            In response to requests Nos. 20, 24-27, 32, 37, 40, 44, 48-51, 56, 61, 64, 85, 86, 100, and 139, Defendant asserted the same series of boilerplate objections, including claims that the documents sought are not relevant, not sufficiently particularized, that the request contains inadequately defined terms, are directed to defects that Plaintiff is not required to prove or to defects that the subject vehicle did not manifest, and are argumentative. Defendant then unilaterally limited the scope of the requests based on these objections and specified which documents in their possession, custody, or control, if any, were responsive to the limited scope of these requests. Defendant’s objections are improper. As the Court has already found, the documents sought are relevant to this matter or are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. It is not for Defendant to determine whether the issues into which Plaintiff’s discovery inquires directly addresses a fact which Plaintiff is required to prove, and, indeed, there is no law requiring the request to do so. Further, the Court disagrees with Defendants’ objection that the requests are not reasonably particularized. Defendant’s objections are, thus, inadequate and the responses are evasive. Further responses without objections are required.

            In response to request No. 110, Defendant objected to the request as vague and ambiguous, failed to specify documents with reasonable particularity, and to the extent it pertains to attorney-client communications as privileged. Defendant then identified a set of documents and stated they would be produced pursuant to the protective order. These objections are not well-taken. The request is not vague or ambiguous in the Court’s view, and further, appears reasonably particularized, especially if, as Defendant contends, all responsive documents have been or could be provided pursuant to a protective order. If that is so, then a statement of full compliance without objections should be provided.

            In response to request No. 120, Defendant objected to the request as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing, and not reasonably particularized since it includes “19 vague categories of documents.” Defendant also asserted privacy and privilege objections which it has not tried to justify.  Defendant also stated in a verified response, however, that it has no responsive documents to this request. Plaintiff contends that this response is inadequate because this response does not state that Defendant performed the appropriate searches for relevant ESI or emails. The Court agrees. Defendant shall provide a code-compliant response, without objections, stating it has conducted the reasonably diligent search for ESI and other documents that is required and, if appropriate, state, under penalty of perjury, that it has no documents that are responsive to this request.

            In response to requests Nos. 125-128, Defendant asserted the same series of boilerplate objections, including claims that the documents sought are not relevant, not sufficiently particularized, that the request contains inadequately defined terms, are directed to defects that Plaintiff is not required to prove or to defects that the subject vehicle did not manifest, and are argumentative. Defendant then unilaterally limited the scope of the requests based on these objections and specified which documents in their possession, custody, or control, if any, were responsive to the limited scope of these requests. Defendant’s objections are improper. As the Court has already found, the documents sought are relevant to this matter or are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is not for Defendant to determine whether the issues into which Plaintiff’s discovery inquires directly addresses a fact which Plaintiff is required to prove, and, indeed, there is no law requiring the request to do so. Further, the Court does not find that the requests are not reasonably particularized. Based on the Court’s conclusion that Defendant’s objections should be overruled and its responses are evasive, further responses without objections are required.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED.

            Defendant is to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2023                               ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.