Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 24STCV13060, Date: 2024-11-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV13060, Date: 2024-11-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV13060 Hearing Date: November 26, 2024 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: November 26, 2024 TRIAL DATE: November 12, 2025

CASE: Gladys Del Socorro Mendez Sansores v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

CASE NO.: 24STCV13060

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

(3) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: (1)-(3) Plaintiff Gladys Del Socorro Mendez Sansores.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1)-(3) Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is a lemon law action filed on May 23, 2024. Plaintiff leased a 2022 Honda Pilot which developed numerous defects in every major system of the vehicle.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production, form interrogatories, and special interrogatories propounded to Defendant.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED IN PART as to Requests Nos. 13-24, 26, 35, 48-52, 57, 60, and 62 only and otherwise DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED IN PART with respect to Interrogatories Nos. 1.1 and 15.1 only and otherwise DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED IN PART as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 6, 15, and 20 through 22 and otherwise DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections to the requests specified herein within 30 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production (Set One) Nos. 13-24, 26-27, 34-35, 46, 48-52, 57-58, 60-62, 65-66, 69, and 71-72 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 the Requests for Production at issue on this motion to Defendant on July 19, 2024. (Declaration of Sam Azmitash ISO Mot. ¶ 8; Exh. D.) Defendant provided responses on responses on August 20, 2024 via email, and verifications by email on August 23, 2024. (Id.¶ 9; Exh. E.) 45 days plus two court days for service by email was October 9, 2024. Although this motion was not filed until October 10, 2024, it was served on October 9, 2024. As the Code of Civil Procedure specifies that notice must be given within the time limit, the Court finds that the motion is timely made because it was served on the October 9 deadline.

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).)

Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet-and-confer letter to Defendant’s counsel on September 20, 2024. (Azimtash Decl. ¶ 11; Exh. F.) No response was received. (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff has therefore satisfied her statutory meet-and-confer obligations.

Good Cause

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production propounded to Defendant. Plaintiff’s moving papers offer no explanation of why good cause exists for these requests beyond sweeping assertions that all of the requests at issue are necessary to support a Song-Beverly claim. This is not “a fact specific showing of relevance” as required to demonstrate good cause. (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) The Court therefore refuses to compel further responses to any request whose relevance is not facially apparent.

1. Requests Nos. 13-24, 26, 57, 60, 62,

Requests 13 through 24, 26, 57, 60, and 62 seek, in essence, any document of any kind which relates to “powertrain defects” in any 2022 Honda Pilot. (Azimtash Decl. Exh. D. Nos. 13-24, 26, 57, 60, 62.) Plaintiff defines “powertrain defects” to mean “such defects which result in symptoms, including but not limited to any of the following: symptoms related to vehicle jerking while driving; symptoms related to vehicle hesitating when accelerating; symptoms related to vehicle’s braking uncontrollably; symptoms related to vehicle slowing down by itself’ symptoms related to brake being faulty; symptoms related to bouncing back and forth of vehicle when shifting; symptoms leading to update of Programmed Fuel Injection Software; and/or any other similar concern identified in the repair history for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” (Azimtash Decl. Exh. D. p.3:11-17.)

Powertrain defects are expressly alleged as one of the many defects in the vehicle. (Complaint ¶ 13.) 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].)

The Court therefore finds that these requests readily demonstrate their relevance to this dispute, and, therefore, good cause for these requests.

2. Requests Nos. 27, 46, 58,

Requests Nos. 27, 46, and 58 seek documents more broadly related to 2022 Honda Pilot vehicles, including (1) documents concerning any technical service bulletins (Azimtash Decl. Exh. D. No. 27); (2) all documents relating to 2022 Honda Pilots which were repurchased or replaced (No. 46); and (3) all Early Warning Reports Defendant submitted to the NHTSA concerning 2022 Honda Pilot vehicles (No. 48.) These requests are overbroad, as they extend beyond documents pertaining to similar defects in the same year, make, and model of vehicle into other, unrelated defects. The Court therefore does not find good cause for these requests.

3. Requests Nos. 34, 61, 65

Requests Nos. 34, 61, and 65 seek documents relied upon or employed in other actions concerning the same powertrain defects. (Azimtash Decl. Exh. D. Nos. 34, 61, 65.) As Plaintiff has not demonstrated the relevance of other actions to this dispute, the Court does not find good cause for these requests.

4. Request No. 35

Request No. 35 seeks any document on which Defendant relied in formulating its Answer to the Complaint. (Exh. D. No. 35.) This request bears directly on the pleadings in this action and therefore shows good cause on its face.

5. Requests Nos. 48-52

Requests Nos. 48 through 52 seek documents regarding management of customer call centers (No. 48), efforts and objectives to reduce repurchases or vehicle replacements (Nos. 49-50), plans, policies, and procedures for achieving buyback reduction goals (No. 51) and reports of repurchases or replacements authorized by Defendant or any of its agents or employees (No. 52.).) Contrary to Defendant’s assertion that “motive is irrelevant,” these materials are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s Song-Beverly claims, because whether a policy or procedure demonstrates a lack of good faith is a question to be decided by a jury. (See, e.g., Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 186.) As evidence must be relevant to be considered by a jury (see Evid. Code § 350), materials which go to the intent behind policies or procedures must therefore be relevant. Relevant evidence is discoverable. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) These requests demonstrate good cause on their face.

6. Requests Nos. 66, 69, 72, and 72

These requests seek (1) Defendant’s dealership agreement with DCH Honda of Oxnard (Exh. D. No. 66); (2) reports from the dealership regarding its repair procedures (No. 69); (3) repair literature provided to the dealership (No. 71) and documents relating to replacement parts provided to the dealership (No. 72.) Nothing in Plaintiff’s papers establishes the relevance of these requests. Plaintiff has therefore failed to demonstrate good cause for these requests.

Defendant’s Responses

Defendant asserted substantively similar responses to all of the requests for which good cause has been shown, asserting objections for vagueness, ambiguity, overbreadth, irrelevance, argumentative requests, and invading attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and privacy, before refusing to provide substantive answers or asserting, subject to those objections, that no responsive documents exist. (See Azimtash Decl. Exh. E.) Although Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s objections have been waived by the failure to serve verified responses within the statutory time to respond, Plaintiff is mistaken. Timely responses to discovery preserve objections even if those responses are unverified. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Fletcher) (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.)

As to the substance of Defendant’s objections, Defendant asserts that the remaining discovery requests employ such nebulous and far-reaching terms that they cannot be answered or otherwise touch on matters which are not germane to this action. The Court disagrees. The outstanding requests are directly tethered to the allegations in the pleadings or are expressly relevant under well-settled case law. The Court is therefore not persuaded that the requests are so vague as to preclude Defendant from intelligibly responding. Moreover, Defendant has entirely failed to address its privilege, work-product, or privacy objections as to the remaining requests, and has therefore not justified its objections in that respect.

The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 13-24, 26, 35, 48-52, 57, 60, and 62 only.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED IN PART as to Requests Nos. 13-24, 26, 35, 48-52, 57, 60, and 62 only and otherwise DENIED.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 3.7, 12.1 through 12.5, 15.1, 17.1, and 50.1 through 50.6 propounded to Defendant.

Legal Standards

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to an interrogatory when the court finds that: “(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate[; or] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.

Timeliness

A motion to compel a further response must be noticed within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental 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. §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c); see also Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409; Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685.) Otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel further responses. (Id.) The 45-day time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410.)

Plaintiff propounded the interrogatories at issue on this motion to Defendant on July 19, 2024. (Declaration of Sam Azmitash ISO Mot. ¶ 8; Exh. D.) Defendant provided responses on responses on August 20, 2024 via email, and verifications by email on August 23, 2024. (Id.¶ 9; Exh. E.) 45 days plus two court days for service by email was October 9, 2024. Although this motion was not filed until October 10, 2024, it was served on October 9, 2024. As the Code of Civil Procedure specifies that notice must be given within the time limit, the Court finds that the motion is timely made because it was served on the October 9 deadline.

Meet and Confer

A party making a motion to compel further responses must 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, 2030.310(b).)

Analysis

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 3.7, 12.1 through 12.5, 15.1, 17.1, and 50.1 through 50.6. Although Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s objections have been waived by the failure to serve verified responses within the statutory time to respond, Plaintiff is mistaken. Timely responses to discovery preserve objections even if those responses are unverified. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Fletcher) (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.)

1. Interrogatory No. 1.1

Form Interrogatory No. 1.1 seeks the contact information of each person who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to the interrogatories. (Plaintiff’s Exh. D. No. 1.1.) Defendant responded by asserting boilerplate objections for invasion of the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and privacy, before answering that the responses were prepared by counsel based on information gathered from documents related to the vehicle in this lawsuit. (Id. Exh. E. No. 1.1.) Defendant does not address its objections in its opposition to this motion beyond asserting that its response was sufficient. The Court disagrees. Defendant has not justified its objections, and, moreover, a code-compliant response to this interrogatory would have, at minimum, identified the attorneys who prepared these interrogatories with the information required. Plaintiff is entitled to a further response to this request.

2. Interrogatory No. 3.7

Form Interrogatory No. 3.7 asks if any public entity has registered or licensed the respondent’s business in the past five years, and asks them to identify each license or registration, state the name of the public entity, and give the dates of issuance and expiration. (Exh. D. No. 3.7.) Defendant asserted objections for overbreadth, irrelevance, and undue burden, before stating that it has been registered with the Secretary of State since 1959. (Id. Exh. E. No. 3.7.)

Defendant contends that this interrogatory is entirely immaterial to this action. In response, Plaintiff claims that the interrogatory is inquiring into whether Defendant has been registered or licensed by any public entity in a manner that is “relevant to its business activities involving the manufacture, sale, or warranty of vehicles.” (Reply p.4:24-26.) The Court is not persuaded. Broad inquiries into whether a vehicle manufacturer has been nonspecifically “registered or licensed” has no bearing on this dispute. Plaintiff is not entitled to a further response to this request.

3. Interrogatory No. 12.1

Form Interrogatory No. 12.1 seeks the contact information of each individual who witnessed the “incident”, made any statements at the scene, heard any statements made about the incident at the scene, or who respondent or anyone acting on respondent’s behalf claims has knowledge of the incident except for expert witnesses. (Plaintiff’s Exh. D. No. 12.1.) “Incident” is defined as “each and every opportunity that the Subject Vehicle was presented to [Defendant’s] authorized repair facility for repairs, maintenance, and/or service.” (Exh. D. p.2.) Defendant asserted objections for vagueness, ambiguity, overbreadth, and invasion of privacy, before identifying two dealerships and, on information and belief, various technicians, service advisors, and counsel. (Plaintiff’s Exh. E. No. 12.1.) The Court fails to see how Defendant’s response is insufficient, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant is obligated to provide information to which it has access. Despite asserting objections, Defendant substantively responded by identifying the locations where the vehicle was presented for repairs, provided identifying information for each prospective witness, and explained the inability to provide further detail. This response appears sufficient, and Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a further response is warranted.

4. Form Interrogatories Nos. 12.2 through 12.5

Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.2 through 12.5 asks whether the Respondent has interviewed any individual concerning the incident, has obtained any written statements, video recordings, models, or diagrams regarding the incident, and to provide contact information of all individuals involved with any of this evidence. (See, e.g, Plaintiff’s Exh. D. No. 12.2.) Defendant asserted similar boilerplate objections to each response before categorically stating, subject to those objections, “No.” (Exh. E. Nos. 12.2-12.5.) Notwithstanding the objections, these responses are sufficient. Each interrogatory asks a yes-or-no question to which Defendant responded,“no.” No further response is required.

5. Form Interrogatory No. 15.1

Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 asks the respondent to identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense and for each state all facts on which the denial is based, provide the contact information of all persons with knowledge of those facts, and identify all documents and other tangible things which support that position and the contact information of the person who has each document. (Plaintiff’s Exh. D No. 15.1.) In response, Defendant merely asserted objections for vagueness, ambiguity, overbreadth, and the work-product doctrine and privilege, before stating that they were asserted preemptively to preserve its potential defenses. This response is evasive on its face. Plaintiff is entitled to a plain statement of the facts, evidence, and witnesses which would tend to support Defendant’s contentions in its answer.

6. Form Interrogatory No. 17.1

Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 seeks all facts in support of any response other than an unqualified admission to the contemporaneous requests for admission, the contact information of anyone with knowledge of those facts, any documents or tangible things in support of that response, and the contact information of anyone with those documents. (Plaintiff’s Exh. D. No. 17.1.)

Although Plaintiff challenges the sufficiency of Defendant’s response to portions of this interrogatory, Plaintiff has not furnished the Court with the requests for admissions on which this interrogatory is premised. As a consequence, the Court cannot determine the sufficiency of the responses. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a further response is warranted.

7. Form Interrogatory No. 50.1

Form Interrogatory No. 50.1 seeks documents related to any agreement alleged in the pleadings and the contact information of each person in possession of those documents, as well as any persons with knowledge of unwritten modifications to the agreement and any documents which evidence those modifications. (Plaintiff’s Exh. D. No. 50.1.) Defendant responded to this interrogatory by identifying the 2022 Honda Pilot Warranty Booklet and sale contract for the subject vehicle, before stating these materials should be in Plaintiff’s possession. (Exh. E. No. 50.1.) Defendant categorically stated there are no portions of the agreements not in writing, and there are no modifications to those agreements. (Id.) This response is sufficient, and no further response is required.

8. Form Interrogatories Nos. 50.2-50.6

Form Interrogatories 50.2 through 50.6 seek information regarding breach, excuse of performance, voluntary termination, enforceability, or ambiguity regarding each agreement alleged in the pleadings. (See, e.g., Plaintiff’s Exh. D. No. 50.2-50.6.) In response to each, Defendant asserted boilerplate objections for vagueness, ambiguity, invasion of attorney-client privilege, and invasion of the work-product doctrine, before categorically asserting that Defendant does not contend any agreement was breached, had performance excused or was terminated, or is unenforceable or ambiguous. (Exh. E. Nos. 50.2-50.6.) These responses are sufficient, notwithstanding the objections, and no further response is required. Plaintiff’s assertions regarding policies and procedures are not material to these interrogatories, which only pertain to agreements, not to policy and procedure documents.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED IN PART with respect to Interrogatories Nos. 1.1 and 15.1 only and otherwise DENIED.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 6, 8-9, 12, 15, and 17 through 23 propounded to Defendant.

Legal Standards

The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.

Timeliness

Meet and Confer

Analysis

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 6, 8-9, 12, 15, and 17 through 23 propounded to Defendant. Although Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s objections have been waived by the failure to serve verified responses within the statutory time to respond, Plaintiff is mistaken. Timely responses to discovery preserve objections even if those responses are unverified. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Fletcher) (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.)

1. Special Interrogatory No. 1

Special Interrogatory No.1 asked Defendant to identify each agent or employee of any Defendant who inspected the vehicle that is the subject of the action, performed repairs on the vehicle, or was present when those vehicles took place. (Azimtash Decl. Exh. D. No. 1.) Defendant’s response asserted boilerplate objections for vagueness, ambiguity, overbreadth, irrelevance, and invasion of privacy, before identifying AHM Field Technical Specialist Serge Vang, DCH Honda of Oxnard, and Ocean Honda of Ventura. (Id. Exh. E. No.1.) Defendant then referred Plaintiff to the service records from DCH Honda of Oxnard and Ocean Honda of Ventura, citing Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230. (Id.)

Defendant argues that its response is sufficient without endeavoring to justify its objections as to this response. Because Defendant has not addressed its objections in connection with this response, the Court disagrees. Plaintiff is entitled to a complete response without objections.

2. Special Interrogatory No. 6

Special Interrogatory No. 6 asks Defendant whether it contends that it is under no obligation to repurchase or replace the subject vehicle, and if so, to describe, in detail, the facts supporting that contention. (Azimtash Decl. Exh. D. No. 6.) In response, Defendant asserted objections for vagueness, ambiguity, and overbreadth, as well as to the extent the question called for a legal conclusion or analysis, before offering a narrative explanation and referring Plaintiff to other documents. (Id. Exh. E. No. 6.)

3. Special Interrogatory No. 8

Special Interrogatory No. 8 asks Defendant to state, for each code or identifier that corresponds “to a potential or actual condition, issue, problem or defect” corresponding to the “powertrain defects” in 2022 Honda Pilot vehicles, a description of the issue and the databases, systems, or software in which the code or identifier can be used. (Azimtash Decl. Exh. D. No. 8.) Plaintiff defines “powertrain defects” to mean “such defects which result in symptoms, including but not limited to any of the following: symptoms related to vehicle jerking while driving; symptoms related to vehicle hesitating when accelerating; symptoms related to vehicle’s braking uncontrollably; symptoms related to vehicle slowing down by itself; symptoms related to brake being faulty; symptoms related to bouncing back and forth of vehicle when shifting; symptoms leading to update of Programmed Fuel Injection Software; and/or any other similar concern identified in the repair history for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” (Azimtash Decl. Exh. D. p.3:21-28.)

Defendant objected to this interrogatory as compound on its face, as well as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant, and invading privacy. The Court concurs with Defendant that this interrogatory is compound on its face in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060 subdivision (f). Moreover, Plaintiff does not explain, either in her moving papers or her Separate Statement, what information this interrogatory seeks that has some bearing on the case at hand. The Court is not persuaded that a further response is warranted to this interrogatory.

4. Special Interrogatory No. 9

Special Interrogatory No. 9 asks Defendant to list each database, system, or software used to store, query, or analyze a laundry list of categories of information. (Azimtash Decl. Exh. D. No. 9.) Defendant objected to this interrogatory as, inter alia, compound on its face. The Court concurs. Plaintiff is not entitled to a further response to this interrogatory.

5. Special Interrogatory No. 12

Special Interrogatory No. 12 asks Defendant to state the number of days shown by its records that the subject vehicle was out of service by reason of any defect or condition complained of by Plaintiff. (Azimtash Decl. Exh. D. No. 12.) Defendant asserted boilerplate objections for vagueness, ambiguity, overbreadth, irrelevance, and not accounting for “the statutory construct of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.” (Exh. E. No. 12.) Defendant does not address its objections in the opposition to this motion, and, therefore, has not justified those objections. Plaintiff is entitled to a further response to this interrogatory.

6. Special Interrogatory No. 15

Special Interrogatory No. 15 asks Defendant to describe, in detail, all steps Defendant or its authorized repair facilities took to repair and permanently fix the powertrain defects in the subject vehicle. (Azimtash Exh. D No. 15.) Defendant responded with substantively identical boilerplate objections, before referring Plaintiff to the service records from DCH Honda of Oxnard and Ocean Honda of Ventura and the Tech Line Contact Reports. (Id. Exh. E. No. 15.)

Defendant, in opposition, asserts that this interrogatory is vague, overbroad, and irrelevant. Defendant is wrong. The interrogatory, in plain terms, asks Defendant to describe what actions it took to repair the vehicle which is alleged to be defective. Plaintiff is entitled to a straightforward response.

7. Special Interrogatories Nos. 17-19

Special Interrogatories Nos. 17, 18, and 19 ask Defendant to state, respectively, any past, present, or future assessments relating to the powertrain defects in 2022 Honda Pilot vehicles (Azimtash Decl. Exh. D. no. 17), any past or future modifications of the manufacturing process for 2022 Honda Pilot vehicles, (no. 18), and its assessment of the powertrain defects in 2022 Honda Pilot Vehicles (no. 19), with specified categories of information for all three interrogatories. Defendant objected to these interrogatories as, inter alia, compound on their face and overbroad. (Id. Exh. E. Nos. 17-19.) The Court concurs. Plaintiff is not entitled to a further response to these interrogatories.

8. Special Interrogatory Nos. 20-21

Special Interrogatories Nos. 20 and 21 ask Defendant to identify all databases maintained by it or its agents containing electronically stored information relating to its efforts to investigate and repair powertrain defects in 2022 Honda Pilot vehicles. (Azimtash Decl. Exh. D. Nos. 20, 21.) Defendant objected to these interrogatories as overbroad, irrelevant, vague, “directed to discovery on discovery,” and argumentative. (Id. Exh. E. Nos. 20, 21.) None of these objections have merit. First, “discovery on discovery” is not a valid objection, and none of the authorities cited by Defendant stand for the position that Plaintiff may not inquire into the manner in which Defendant stores relevant information. (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 [discussing the broad scope of discovery]; Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611 [same]; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 [same].) Second, an interrogatory which asks where Defendant stores information that relates, on its face, to the allegations in the pleadings is by definition “reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence” and is not overbroad or vague on its face. Nor is the Court persuaded that the interrogatories are argumentative, as Defendant need not acknowledge that the vehicle was, in fact, defective to come into possession of records investigating, among other things, whether a defect existed at all. The Court is not satisfied that these objections have merit. As Defendant does not address the remainder of its objections with respect to these interrogatories, the Court finds that those objections are similarly unjustified.

Plaintiff is therefore entitled to a further response to these interrogatories.

9. Special Interrogatory No. 22

Special Interrogatory No. 22 asks Defendant to identify all databases, custodians, and search terms used to respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents. (Azimtash Decl. Exh. D. No. 22.) Defendant objected to these interrogatories as overbroad, vague, “directed to discovery on discovery,” argumentative, and invading attorney-client privilege. (Id. Exh. E. No. 22.) These objections are specious and evasive. Plaintiff is manifestly entitled to inquire into the search methods used by Defendant to produce documents in response to discovery so as to determine whether there is any deficiency in Defendant’s production. Moreover, Defendant makes no showing that any material is privileged and fails to explain how this request is “overbroad or vague” beyond bare assertions. Further, as stated above, “discovery on discovery” is not a valid objection. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff is entitled to a further response to this interrogatory.

10. Special Interrogatory No. 23

Special Interrogatory No. 23 asks Defendant to identify all documents reviewed by it or its employees, agents, or representatives in denying the request for repurchase. (Azimtash Decl. Exh. D. No. 23.) In response, Defendant asserted objections for vagueness, ambiguity, and overbreadth, before responding that the interrogatory is not applicable because Defendant did not deny a pre-litigation request for refund or replacement. (Id. Exh. E. No. 23.) Notwithstanding the boilerplate nature of Defendant’s objections, the Court finds this response sufficient. Defendant plainly states that it did not deny a request for repurchase. No further response is required.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED IN PART as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 6, 15, and 20 through 22 and otherwise DENIED.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED IN PART as to Requests Nos. 13-24, 26, 35, 48-52, 57, 60, and 62 only and otherwise DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED IN PART with respect to Interrogatories Nos. 1.1 and 15.1 only and otherwise DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED IN PART as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 6, 15, and 20 through 22 and otherwise DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections to the requests specified herein within 30 days of this order.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 26, 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.