Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 21STCV30877, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30877    Hearing Date: May 1, 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 timely file an opposition.  Instead, on April 19, 2023 at 11:18 p.m., FCA’s counsel filed a declaration stating that they had not calendared the opposition deadline.  Counsel also attached an opposition as Exhibit B.  At the April 20, 2023 hearing, the Court directed the parties to prepare and file a joint statement no later than April 26, 2023.  The Court continued the hearing to May 1, 2023.

The parties did not timely file a joint statement.

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.)

FCA 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 FCA’s knowledge of similar defects are relevant to whether FCA’s violations were willful.  (See Complaint ¶¶ 25, 28, 32.)  FCA has not demonstrated that the requests are unduly burdensome.  An assertion of FCA’s burden is conclusory and no different than the burden of reviewing and producing electronically stored information in any other scenario.

FCA’s counsel’s April 19, 2023 declaration attached an opposition and response to Plaintiff’s separate statement.  (Nassirian Decl., Ex. B.)  FCA contends that it supplemented its responses, thereby mooting the motion.  (Nassirian Decl., Ex. B, Motion at p. 4.)  FCA does not state when it served these responses.

FCA’s supplemental responses to RFP Nos. 1, 8, 11, 12, 23, 27, 30, 31, 33, 70-73 are code-compliant and state that FCA conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, and it either produced all responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control, or no such documents currently exist or ever existed.  FCA also explains the search terms used when conducting some of the searches.  (See Nassirian Decl., Ex. B, Separate Statement.)

FCA’s supplemental responses to RFP Nos. 17, 20, 21, 74-76 state that it “will comply in full with this request” and produce documents.  FCA must in fact comply and produce the documents.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART.  FCA is ordered to provide verified supplemental responses and document production for RFP Nos. 17, 20, 21, 74-76 within 7 days.  For any documents for which privilege is asserted, FCA must provide a privilege log.

FCA does not state when it provided supplemental responses, and it appears that Plaintiff’s motion may have been the catalyst for FCA’s supplemental production.  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 7 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 1st day of May 2023