Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 21STCV13635, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV13635    Hearing Date: February 6, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On April 9, 2021, Plaintiff Chantly Banayan filed this action against Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC for breach of warranties arising from the purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle. 

On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff propounded her second of written discovery, including Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two.  On September 28, 2022, Defendant served unverified responses that consisted entirely of objections.  On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses.

A party may move to compel a further response to a demand for production of documents if the demanding party deems that the statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or an objection in the response is without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

As summarized by Plaintiff, the RFPs seek documents relating to (1) Plaintiff’s own vehicle (Nos. 2, 3, and 5); (2) Defendant’s warranty and repurchase policies, procedures, and practices (Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9); and (3) Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model (Nos. 10-78).

Defendant objected to the RFPs on the grounds that they are vague, ambiguous, unintelligible; seek irrelevant information; seek documents protected by privileges; and/or are overly broad and overly burdensome.

Each of the allegedly vague, ambiguous, or unintelligible terms is defined at the beginning of the Request for Production.  The requested documents are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims for breach of warranties and failure to repair to conform to warranties.  The documents relating to policies, procedures, and practices and documents relating to Defendant’s knowledge of similar defects are relevant to whether Defendant’s violations were willful.  (See Complaint ¶¶ 29, 55.)  Defendant has not demonstrated that the requests are unduly burdensome.  The explanation of Defendant’s burden is conclusory and no different than the burden of reviewing and producing electronically stored information in any other scenario.  (See Perez Decl. ¶¶ 6, 10, 12.)

Defendant contends that RFP No. 1 is duplicative of Set One, No. 23, and RFP Nos. 7-8 are duplicative of Set One, No. 18.  (Opposition at p. 7.)  If Defendant already provided responsive documents pursuant to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, then Defendant may direct Plaintiff to specific parts of the prior production.

The motion is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to provide verified responses, without objection, within ten days.  For any documents for which privilege is asserted, Defendant must provide a privilege log.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

         Dated this 6th day of February 2023