Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV12512, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12512    Hearing Date: May 24, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     May 24, 2024             TRIAL DATE: December 3, 2024

CASE:                         Jesse Rosales v. FCA US LLC

CASE NO.:                 23STCV12512           

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

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Jesse Rosales

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant FCA US LLC

CASE HISTORY:

·         06/02/23: Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a lemon law action filed on June 2, 2023. Plaintiff purchased a 2020 Jeep Wrangler which subsequently developed defects in the body, powertrain, safety and electrical systems, and the brakes.

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

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED.

            Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections to Requests for Production Nos. 16 through 21 within 30 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to specific requests for production 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.)

            Plaintiff propounded this discovery at issue in this motion on September 15, 2023. (Declaration of Noreelie Panhwar ISO Mot. ¶ 10; Exh. 2.) Defendant’s original responses were served electronically on October 16, 2023, with document production on December 5, 2023, and verifications on January 30, 2024. (Id. ¶¶ 11-12; Exhs. 3-4.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that Defendant supplemented its production on February 6, 2024, without supplemental responses or verifications. (Id. ¶ 14.) On March 18, 2024, the parties attended an Informal Discovery Conference at which they orally stipulated to extend the motion deadline to April 2, 2024. (March 18, 2024 Minute Order.) That stipulation was entered as the order of the Court. (Id.) This motion was filed and served on that extended date, and 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 describes Plaintiff’s extensive efforts to informally resolve this dispute, including multiple meet-and-confer letters and an informal discovery conference. (Panhwar Decl. ¶¶ 18-24.) Plaintiff has therefore satisfied his statutory meet and confer obligations.

Good Cause

            Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 16-21. These requests seek all documents relating to internal analysis or investigation into the “engine defect” (Panhwar Decl. Exh. 2. No. 16), communications regarding the “engine defect” (No. 17); decisions to issue notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins, and recalls concerning the “engine defect” (No. 18); customer complaints, reported failures, and warranty claims; (No. 19); failure rates as a result of the “engine defect” (No. 20); and fixes for the “engine defect.” (No. 21.) All requests pertain not only to the subject vehicle but to vehicles of the same year, make, and model. The requests define “engine defect to mean:

such defects which result in symptoms including, but not limited to: illumination of Check Engine Light (CEL), Service Engine Soon (SES) Light, or Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL); engine misfire; engine overheating; coolant leak; faulty thermostat; defective coolant hose; cracked engine block; premature failure of engine block; and any other concern identified in the repair history for the subject 2020 Jeep Wrangler; Vehicle Identification Number 1C4HJXDN6LW198146.

(Panhwar Decl. Exh. 2. p.3:14:20.)

            Evidence of similar defects in other vehicles is 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].) Applying this well-settled precedent, the Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for these requests.

Defendant’s Responses

            In response to each request, Defendant asserted substantially identical boilerplate objections that the requests were not reasonably particularized, were overbroad and argumentative, that the definition of “engine defect” was not sufficiently specific, that the definition of “your” in reference to Defendant was overbroad, that the requests seek confidential or privileged information, that the request for electronically stored information is overbroad and unduly burdensome, and that the vehicle was purchased used and therefore not subject to the remedies of the Song-Beverly Act. (See, e.g., Panhwar Decl. Exh. 3. No. 16.) Defendant also specifically objected to Request No. 18 arguing it seeks information regarding other customers which is irrelevant and violates their privacy rights. (Id. No. 18.)

            In opposition, Defendant first argues that Plaintiff did not address the sufficiency of Defendant’s supplemental production, acknowledged by Plaintiffs as served on February 6, 2024. (Panhwar Decl. ¶ 14.) Defendant states that its supplemental responses were served on January 30, 2024, by email. (Declaration of Michael J. Gregg ISO Opp. ¶ 11, Exh. F.) However, those supplemental responses are unaccompanied by a verification, and unverified responses to discovery are tantamount to no response at all. (See Steven M. Garber & Associates v. Eskandarian (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 813, 817 fn 4.) Moreover, Defendant fails to justify any of its objections beyond baldly asserting that the responses are overbroad and irrelevant, or, alternatively, that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the objections are invalid. However, 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.) Defendant has failed to do so. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order compelling further responses.

CONCLUSION:

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

            Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections to Requests for Production Nos. 16 through 21 within 30 days of this order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  May 24, 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.