Judge Thomas D. Long, Case 22STCV05919 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

On February 16, 2022, Plaintiff Michael Matavousian filed this action against Defendants FCA US, LLC (“FCA”) and Rydell Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram.

On May 2, 2022, Plaintiff propounded Request for Production, Set One, on FCA. (Neubauer Decl. ¶ 19 & Ex. 7.) FCA served responses on June 3, 2022. (Neubauer Decl. ¶ 21 & Ex. 8.) After meeting and conferring (Neubauer Decl. ¶¶ 28-34 & Exs. 9-11, 14-15), the parties scheduled an Informal Discovery Conference. On August 12, 2022, FCA failed to appear at the IDC. On August 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production, Set One.

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).)

Plaintiff seeks to compel further production for RFP Nos. 1, 8, 15-22, 32, and 57-62. Plaintiff argues that FCA “failed to produce large categories of documents such as 1) all internal investigation documents related to Defects in other 2019 Dodge Ram 1500 Laramie vehicles (including the ‘accretion of knowledge’ documents that preceded FCA’s decisions to issue TSBs, Recalls, and Campaigns relating to the Defects in 2019 Dodge Ram 1500 Laramie vehicles, which courts routinely order car manufacturers to produce); 2) all National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (hereinafter ‘NHTSA’) communications (including Early Warning Reports, field technical reports, NHTSA complaints and TREAD reports); 3) any executive reviews; 4) all emails or ESI documentation; and 5) all documents relating to FCA’s recall policies and procedures.” (Motion at p. 4.)

FCA contends that it has since supplemented its responses, but Plaintiff still argues that the supplemental responses are deficient and not code-compliant.

RFP No. 1 seeks “All DOCUMENTS relating to, referring to, or concerning the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

FCA’s supplemental response states that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, it has “complied in full with this request.” FCA also lists the documents that it produced. FCA noted that it did not sell or service the Subject Vehicle, and it referred Plaintiff to Fox Hills Chrysler Jeep and Rydell Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, who FCA believes may be in possession of additional responsive documents.

Plaintiff argues that “[j]ust because FCA did not ‘sell’ or ‘service’ the Subject Vehicle, does not mean that the documents from FCA’s authorized dealership or service centers are not in FCA’s custody and control,: and Plaintiff argues that the response is “ambiguous and leaves Plaintiff to guess whether or not Defendant is withholding any responsive documents based on this limitation.” However, FCA stated that it complied in full after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry. Plaintiff’s speculation does not make FCA’s production inadequate.

RFP No. 8 seeks “All LEMON LAW DOCUMENTS published by YOU and provided to YOUR employees, agents, and representatives.”

FCA’s supplemental response states that it “has complied in full with this request and produced responsive documents, subject to a protective order, within its possession, custody or control,” and it specifies the documents.

Plaintiff speculates that “FCA cherry picks the documents that it is turning over.” However, FCA stated that it complied in full and produced the responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control.

RFP No. 15 seeks “All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any field technical reports from YOUR agents, representatives, or employees to YOU which provide YOU with information relating to repeat repair failures in DODGE VEHICLES.”

FCA’s supplemental response states that it “will comply in full with this request,” and it “conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and will produce all responsive documents within its possession custody and control.” FCA also identifies the documents it will produce and the databased it queried.

Plaintiff argues that there is no indication that FCA also searched the Global Warranty Applications (GWA), the Global Warranty System (GWS), the Parts Return Analysis System (PRAS), and the Proving Grounds Testing Information System (“PGTIS”) databases. However, FCA’s response is complete, stating that it will comply in full and will produce all responsive documents within its possession, custody, and control.

Because FCA states only that it “will comply,” the motion is GRANTED, and FCA must produce the documents within 10 days.

RFP No. 16 seeks “All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning any internal analysis or investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding ENGINE DEFECTS in DODGE VEHICLES.” “DODGE VEHICLES” is defined as all vehicles of the same make, model, and year as the Subject Vehicle.

RFP No. 17 seeks “All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning any communications YOU have had regarding ENGINE DEFECTS in DODGE VEHICLES.”

RFP No. 19 seeks “All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and recalls concerning the ENGINE DEFECTS in DODGE VEHICLES.”

RFP No. 20 seeks “All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating in any way to any decision to modify the ENGINE, and/or any of its component parts, in response to ENGINE DEFECTS in DODGE VEHICLES.”

FCA’s supplemental response states that it is “unable to comply with this request,” and after a diligent search and reasonable injury for any Recalls, Technical Service Bulletins (“TSB”s,) Customer Satisfaction Notifications, or internal investigations applicable to the Subject Vehicle, FCA located none. FCA explains that it utilized the terms identified in Plaintiff’s “ENGINE DEFECTS” definition and queried specific databases where responsive information is most likely to be found.

Plaintiff argues that there is no indication that FCA also searched the Global Warranty Applications (GWA), the Global Warranty System (GWS), the Parts Return Analysis System (PRAS), and the Proving Grounds Testing Information System (“PGTIS”) databases. However, FCA’s response is complete, stating that no responsive documents exist after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry.

RFP No. 18 seeks “All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning any communications YOU have had regarding customer concerns relating to ENGINE DEFECTS in DODGE VEHICLES.”

RFP No. 21 seeks “All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to ENGINE DEFECTS, including any databases in YOUR possession with information from dealers, service departments, parts departments, or warranty departments, and all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim or reported failure.”

RFP No. 22 seeks “All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning failure rates of DODGE VEHICLES as a result of the ENGINE DEFECTS.”

FCA’s supplemental response states that it “will comply in full with this request,” and it “conducted a diligent search and will produce, subject to protective order, all responsive documents within its possession custody and control related to other customer concerns, including emails between customers and FCA US, for the same make year, and model of the [Subject Vehicle].” FCA also “conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry for any Recalls, Technical Service Bulletins (‘TSB’s,) Customer Satisfaction Notifications, or internal investigations applicable to the Subject Vehicle and concerning conditions outlined in Plaintiff’s ‘ENGINE DEFECTS’ definition and located none.” FCA also “conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and will produce, subject to protective order, responsive documents related to warranty claims data and failure rate data (C/1000, MOPMIS), for the same make, year, and model of the 2019 Ram 1500 Laramie Quad Cab 4x2, as they relate to Plaintiff’s ‘ENGINE DEFECTS’ definition.” FCA explains that it utilized the terms identified in Plaintiff’s “ENGINE DEFECTS” definition and queried specific databases where responsive information is most likely to be found.

Because FCA states only that it “will comply,” the motion is GRANTED, and FCA must produce the documents within 10 days.

RFP No. 32 seeks “Any and all audio or video tape recordings involving any discussions concerning the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

FCA’s supplemental response states that it “has complied in full with this request and produce a copy of available Customer Assistance Inquiry Records (‘CAIRs’) containing communications with Plaintiff relating to the Subject Vehicle.”

The motion is granted in part. FCA is ordered to provide a further response stating whether it has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and produced all responsive documents within its possession, custody, and control.

RFP No. 57 seeks “All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, regarding any communications between YOU and any government agency or entity (e.g. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (‘NHTSA’)) regarding ENGINE DEFECTS in DODGE VEHICLES.”

RFP No. 58 seeks “All National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (‘NHTSA’) complaints in YOUR possession that relate to ENGINE DEFECTS in DODGE VEHICLES.”

FCA’s supplemental response states that it “is unable to comply with this request as it has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and no recalls nor internal investigations have been conducted related to the terms identified in Plaintiff’s ‘ENGINE DEFECTS’ definition and therefore no documents, including emails and communications with government agencies, exist or have ever existed responsive to this request.” FCA explains that it utilized the terms identified in Plaintiff’s “ENGINE DEFECTS” definition and queried specific databases where responsive information is most likely to be found.

Plaintiff argues that there is no indication that FCA also searched the Global Warranty Applications (GWA), the Global Warranty System (GWS), the Parts Return Analysis System (PRAS), and the Proving Grounds Testing Information System (“PGTIS”) databases. However, FCA’s response is complete, stating that no responsive documents exist after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry.

RFP No. 59 seeks “All Early Warning Reports (‘EWR’) YOU submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (‘NHTSA’) concerning DODGE VEHICLES.”

FCA’s supplemental response states that “[f]ollowing a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, FCA US will comply in full with this request and produce all responsive documents within its possession, custody and control.” FCA identifies the documents it will produce and explains some of its searches.

Because FCA states only that it “will comply,” the motion is GRANTED, and FCA must produce the documents within 10 days.

RFP No. 60 seeks “All Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (‘TREAD’) reports YOU submitted concerning DODGE VEHICLES.”

FCA’s supplemental response states, “Following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, FCA US will comply in full with this request and produce all TREAD reports applicable to FCA US vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.”

Plaintiff argues, without evidence, that “FCA has not performed any kind of appropriate search for all responsive documents, emails, and ESI, and FCA has not stated that all documents have been produced.” But FCA states that it will produce all appliable TREAD reports.

Because FCA states only that it “will comply,” the motion is GRANTED, and FCA must produce the documents within 10 days.

FCA’s supplemental response explains some of its procedure and states, “FCA US will comply in full with this request and produce, subject to protective order, a copy of the Defect Determination Process, Field Action Decision Process, FSAR How to, Service Action RASIC, and Task Flow.”

RFP No. 62 seeks “All DOCUMENTS related to any electronic mail (including current, backed-up and archived programs, accounts, unified messaging, server-based e-mail, Web-based e-mail, dial-up e-mail, usernames and addresses, domain names and addresses, e-mail messages, attachments, manual and automated mailing lists and mailing list addresses) which in any way relate to ENGINE DEFECTS in DODGE VEHICLES.”

FCA’s supplemental response states that it “is unable to comply with this request. FCA US conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry for any Recalls, Technical Service Bulletins (“TSB”s,) Customer Satisfaction Notifications, or internal investigations applicable to the [Subject Vehicle], and concerning conditions outlined in Plaintiff’s ‘ENGINE DEFECTS’ definition and located none. Therefore no documents, including emails, exist or have ever existed responsive to this request.” FCA explains that it utilized the terms identified in Plaintiff’s “ENGINE DEFECTS” definition and queried specific databases where responsive information is most likely to be found.

Plaintiff argues that there is no indication that FCA also searched the Global Warranty Applications (GWA), the Global Warranty System (GWS), the Parts Return Analysis System (PRAS), and the Proving Grounds Testing Information System (“PGTIS”) databases. However, FCA’s response is complete, stating that no responsive documents exist after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry.

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.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court