Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV19539, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19539    Hearing Date: March 7, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 16, 2023, Plaintiff Frank Rojas filed this action against Defendant Volkswagen Group of America Inc. arising from Plaintiff’s purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle.

On September 6, 2023, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) on Defendant.  (Rivero Decl. ¶¶ 25-26.)  On October 30, 2023, pursuant to an extension of time, Defendant served responses.  (Rivero Decl. ¶¶ 28-29.)  After meeting and conferring and granting extensions, Plaintiff filed motions to compel further responses on January 29, 2024.  (Rivero Decl. ¶¶ 30-35 & Exs. 16-21.)

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

A party may move to compel a further response to interrogatories if the demanding party deems an answer to be evasive or incomplete, if an exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or inadequate, or if objection is without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff seeks further responses to Special Rog Nos. 2, 7, 17-27, and 32.  (See Notice of Motion.)

Special Rog No. 2 asks Defendant to identify all repair documents (as specifically defined in the requests) issued for the same vehicle that pertain to the electrical defect.  This request is limited to the same vehicle and defect alleged by Plaintiff, and it is relevant to Defendant’s failure to repair the vehicle and failure to make sufficient service literature and replacement parts available.  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is GRANTED.

Special Rog No. 7 asks Defendant to identify all documents on which Defendant relies in determining whether a consumer complaint constitutes a substantial impairment.  This is relevant to Defendant’s refusal to repair or replace the vehicle and whether Defendant acted willfully.  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is GRANTED.

Special Rog Nos. 17-27 ask Defendant to identify all documents (1) underlying its publication of Technical Service Bulletins 2061257/2, 2071185/1, 2069747/3, 2068435/1, 2063913/4, 2063913/6, and 2067557/1 to its network of authorized dealerships; (2) underlying its publication of  Recall 91DZ to its network of authorized dealerships; and (3) intended to address the conditions resulting in activation of DTC U0447-00, DTC U0155-00, and DTC U10C0-00.  Defendant objected and responded, “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, please see and dealer repair orders (Exhibit C) and Recall/TSBs (Exhibit G) produced in response to the Plaintiff's request for production.”  Plaintiff has not shown why this response is deficient.  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is DENIED.

Special Rog No. 32 asks Defendant to identify all databases that Defendant or its agents, employees, and/or representative maintain which contain electronically stored information relating to Defendant’s efforts to investigate, diagnose, assess, determine, modify, repair, and/or evaluate the electrical defect in the same vehicle.  This is relevant to Defendant’s refusal to repair or replace the vehicle and whether Defendant acted willfully, and Plaintiff requests only the identity, not the contents, of the databases.  Defendant’s boilerplate objections are overruled.  Defendant’s objections erroneously refer to “BRAKE DEFECT(S),” and it is not apparent how the identity of databases “seeks information from third parties and/or information equally available to Plaintiff” and “seeks the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client and work-product privileges . . . [and] seeks the premature disclosure of expert information.”  This further highlights the boilerplate nature of Defendant’s objections.  The motion is GRANTED.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above.  Defendant is ordered to provide verified, supplemental responses within 30 days.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

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).)  The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

Plaintiff seeks further responses to RFP Nos. 7, 8, 10-14, and 27-30.  (See Notice of Motion.)

RFP No. 7 seeks the Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals published by Defendant and provided to Defendant’s authorized repair facilities within California from 2021 to the present.  After objecting, Defendant responded that it would produce all non-privileged documents for its “policies/procedures and training materials pertaining to the pre-litigation handling of California consumers’ repurchase/replacement requests,” upon execution of a protective order.  Defendant’s overbreadth objection is sustained, and all other objections are overruled.  This request seeks materials beyond those applicable to Plaintiff’s vehicle and the alleged defects.  The motion is GRANTED IN PART.  Defendant must produce the requested materials for only the same make and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle.

RFP No. 8 seeks a copy of the Workshop or Service Manual specifying diagnosis and repair procedures for the same vehicle.  This request is limited to the same vehicle, and it is relevant to Defendant’s failure to repair the vehicle and failure to make sufficient service literature available.  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is GRANTED.

RFP Nos. 10-14, 27-30 seek all documents (1) constituting any internal analysis or investigation by Defendant regarding the electrical defect in the same vehicle; (2) reflecting Defendant’s decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and recalls concerning the electrical defect in the same vehicle; (3) containing customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims regarding the electrical defect in the same vehicle; (4) reflecting failure rates of the same vehicle due to the electrical defect; (5) constituting any fixes for the electrical defect in the same vehicle; (6) of communications between Defendant and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding the electrical defect in the same vehicle; (7) of NHTSA complaints regarding the electrical defect in the same vehicle; (8) of Early Warning Reports that Defendant submitted to the NHTSA regarding the electrical defect in the same vehicle; and (9) of TREAD reports that Defendant submitted regarding the electrical defect in the same vehicle.  This is limited to the same defect and vehicle alleged by Plaintiff, and it is relevant to Defendant’s refusal to repair or replace the vehicle and whether Defendant acted willfully.  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is GRANTED.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART as set forth above.  Defendant is ordered to provide verified, supplemental responses within 30 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.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 7th day of March 2023