Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV12262, Date: 2024-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12262    Hearing Date: April 15, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     April 15, 2024                        TRIAL DATE: January 21, 2025

CASE:                         Mohamad Mehdi Molaei v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

CASE NO.:                 23STCV12262           

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

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Mohamad Mehdi Molaei

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

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a lemon law action filed on May 31, 2023. Plaintiff purchased a 2020 Honda Odyssey which developed defects in numerous core systems.

Plaintiff moves 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:

Plaintiff moves 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 31, 2024, the Court ordered pursuant to a stipulation by the parties that Plaintiff would have until March 14, 2024 to file motions to compel on any outstanding discovery issues. (January 31, 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 Noreelie Panhwar in support of the motion sets forth the extensive history of Plaintiff’s attempts to informally resolve this dispute, including several meet-and-confer letters and an informal discovery conference. (See Declaration of Noreelie Panhwar ISO Mot. ¶¶ 23-32 Exhs. 10-12.) Plaintiff has satisfied his statutory meet-and-confer obligations.

Good Cause

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production (set one) propounded to Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks further responses to Requests Nos. 16 through 21. These requests sought documents concerning internal analysis (Panhwar Decl. Exh. 5 No. 16), communications (No. 17), decisions regarding any form of notice (No. 18), complaints of failure (No. 19), failure rates (No. 20), and fixes (No. 21) for “electrical defects” in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. “Electrical Defect” is defined as:

such defects which result in symptoms including, but not limited to: malfunction of rearview camera display; blank dash display screen; crackling noise from speakers; static noise from speakers; unresponsive radio unit; frozen radio unit; defective audio system; premature failure of FAKRA connectors; malfunctioning connectors; faulty audio tuner and meter; TSB #20-103; TSB #22-027; TSB #20-050; and any other concern identified in the repair history for the subject 2020 Honda Odyssey; Vehicle Identification Number 5FNRL6H71LB002901.

(Panhwar Decl. Exh. 5. p.3:14-21.)

            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 that these cases do not support Plaintiff’s 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 that similar documents be produced. (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 these requests.

Defendant’s Response

            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 definition of “Electrical Defect” employed for Plaintiff’s requests is overly broad and ambiguous. 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 15, 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.