Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 21STCV30877, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30877    Hearing Date: April 20, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff Laura Rico filed this action against Defendants FCA US LLC and Scott Robinson Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram for breach of warranties arising from the purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle and subsequent negligent repair.

On February 28, 2022, Plaintiff Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on FCA.  On March 30, 2022, FCA served responses but did not produce documents other than the subject vehicle records.  On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 1, 8, 11, 12, 17, 20, 21, 23, 27, 30, 31, 33, 70-76.  FCA did not file an opposition.

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. 1, 2, 4-6); (2) defects in other 2012 Chrysler 200 vehicles with the same engine and transmission system as Plaintiff’s vehicle (Nos. 17-20, 22-23, 27-30, 32, 33, 43); (3) TSBs, campaigns, recalls, and communications with the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency related to the defects (Nos. 11, 12, 71-75); and (4) FCA’s lemon law policies and procedures (No. 8, 76).  (See Notice of Motion; Neubauer Decl. ¶ 12.)

Defendant objected to some RFPs on the grounds that they are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, and irrelevant.  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 ¶¶ 25, 28, 32.)  FCA has not demonstrated that the requests are unduly burdensome.  An assertion of Defendant’s burden is conclusory and no different than the burden of reviewing and producing electronically stored information in any other scenario.

The unopposed motion is GRANTED.  FCA is ordered to provide verified supplemental responses and document production within 21 days.  For any documents for which privilege is asserted, FCA must provide a privilege log.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted in part.  (Motion at p. 15; see Neubauer Decl. ¶ 46.)  FCA is ordered to pay sanctions of $2,500.00 to Plaintiff within 21 days.

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 20th day of April 2023