Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV07060, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV07060 Hearing Date: January 28, 2025 Dept: 45
IVAN
JESUS JACINTO v. FCA US LLC
MOTION FOR
TRIAL PREFERENCE
Date of
Hearing: January 28, 2025 Trial
Date: March 2, 2026
Department: 45 Case No.: 24STCV07060
Moving Party:
Plaintiff Ivan Jesus Jacinto
Responding
Party: Defendant
FCA US LLC
BACKGROUND
On
March 20, 2024, Plaintiff Ivan Jesus Jacinto (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint
against Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”), alleging causes of action for: (1) Violation
of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty; (2) Violation of Song-Beverly
Act – Breach of Implied Warranty; and (3) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act
Section 1793.2. Plaintiff alleges he purchased a 2019 Jeep
Compass, and Defendant issued a written warranty. Plaintiff alleges the vehicle
was delivered to Plaintiff with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty
and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including,
but not limited to, suspension, electrical, steering, engine, transmission, and
emission system defects.
[Tentative]
Ruling
Plaintiff’s
motion to compel further is GRANTED.
Defendant is ordered to provide further responses within 30 days of this
order.
LEGAL STANDARD
On receipt of
a response to an inspection demand, the demanding party may move for an order
compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that
any of the following apply: (1) a
statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of
inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) an objection
in the response is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2031.310(a).) A statement of
compliance shall state that the production, inspection, and related activity
demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or
things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control
of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the
production. (CCP § 2031.220.) “A representation of inability to comply with
[a] particular demand for inspection . . . shall affirm that a diligent search
and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that
demand. This statement shall also specify
whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has
never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has
never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the
responding party. This statement shall
set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or
believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or
category of item.” (CCP § 2031.230.)
A motion to
compel further response to requests for production “shall set forth specific
facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection
demand.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).) “To establish ‘good cause,’ the burden is on
the moving party to show both: [1] Relevance to the subject matter (e.g.,
how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue
in the case); and [2] Specific facts justifying discovery
(e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent
surprise at trial). (Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 8:1495.6
(citations omitted).
“If ‘good
cause’ is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the responding party
to justify any objections made to document disclosure (the same as on motions
to compel answers to interrogatories or deposition questions. . . ).” (Id.
at 8:1496 (citation omitted).)
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff
requests that the court compel Defendant to respond further to Plaintiff’s
Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1-31. These requests fall into three broad categories: (1)
materials relating directly to the vehicle that is the subject of this action;
(2) Defendant’s warranty and replacement/repurchase policies,
procedures, and practices; and (3) Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar
defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject
Vehicle.
(Requests
Nos. 1-14) Materials Relating Directly to the Subject
Vehicle
Requests
Nos. 1 through 14 seek (1) documents relating to the subject vehicle within
Defendant’s Customer Relations Center; (2) documents which evidence, support,
refer, or relate to each of the affirmative defenses as set for in your answer; (3-4) documents relating to
inspections or repair orders pertaining to the subject vehicle; (5) documents,
including manuals, and express warranty booklets provided to consumers with
respect to the purchase or lease of the subject vehicle; (6) documents relating
to Retail Installment Sale Contracts and/or Lease Agreements in connection with
the subject vehicle; (7) documents relating to diagnostic trouble codes stored
by Defendant or its repair facility as a result of any inspections or repairs
conducted on the subject vehicle; (8) documents issued for subject vehicle,
including recalls, TSBs, and dealer advisories; (9) documents relating to
communications between Defendant and its repair facility relating to the
vehicle; (10-11) documents relating to summaries of warranty repairs and
amounts paid for those repairs on the vehicle; (12) photos or video of the
vehicle; (13) documents relating to communications between Defendant and
Plaintiff; and (14) documents relating to any communications with third parties
regarding the vehicle. (Separate Statement Nos. 1-14.)
As an
initial matter, the court notes that the requested items in Nos. 1-14 are
facially relevant as they relate to the subject vehicle, to the pleadings or to
communications between the parties. Thus, there is good cause to compel a
further response as to Nos. 1-8 and 10- 14.
As to Nos. 1-6, 10-11, and 13-14,
Defendant responds that: “FCA US will comply in full with this request
and produce all responsive documents within its possession, custody
or control, namely….” A statement
that the party will comply need only state that the RPD “will be allowed either
in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category
that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no
objection is being made will be included in the production.” (CCP §
2031.220.) At first glance it appears the response is code compliant.
However,
Defendant also otherwise objects on the following grounds: overly broad, not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to the needs of the
case, among other things. “If the responding party
objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item
or category of item, the response shall do both of the following: (1) Identify
with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored
information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an
objection is being made. (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific
ground for, the objection.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b).) Here, the
response is not code compliant. While Defendant states it will comply in full, Defendant
also objects. But Defendant has failed to identify with particularity any
document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling
within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made. Without
such clarification as to whether any document has been withheld based on the
objection, it is unclear whether all responsive documents have been
produced. Further, Defendant has failed to justify its boilerplate
objections.
As
such, the court compels a further response as to Nos. 1-6, 10-11, and 13-14.
As to Nos. 7-8,
Defendant responds that FCA US will comply in part and will
produce a copy of the Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs), recalls, and Customer Satisfaction
Notifications that may be applicable to the Subject Vehicle. TSBs,
recalls, and Customer Satisfaction Notifications are vehicle-specific and
identify the vehicles to which they apply, sometimes by VIN or build date.
FCA US will also search its records and produce a copy of any Rapid
Response Transmittal reasonably at issue in this case.
Defendant
then otherwise objects on various grounds. Again, the response is not code
compliant because Defendant also objects yet fails to identify any document or
thing falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection
is being made. The objections have also not been justified. Thus, a further
response is compelled as to Nos. 7-8.
As to No. 9, Defendant
responds that it is unable to comply with this request as it has
performed a diligent search for a copy of any communications with any
authorized repair facility concerning service to the Subject Vehicle and
located none. Upon information and belief, no such documents currently exist,
or ever existed. This
response is sufficient and code compliant.
As to No. 12, Defendant
responds that it has conducted a diligent search and
reasonable inquiry in an attempt to comply with this request, however FCA US is
unable to comply because the responsive documents are not within its
possession, custody or control. Defendant fails to set forth if the documents have
never been or are no longer in its possession custody or control. Defendant
also fails to set forth Defendant
fails to set forth the name and address of any person known or believed to have
possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. As such, the
court compels a further response to No. 12.
(Requests
Nos. 15-29) Defendant’s Warranty and Replacement/Repurchase Policies,
Procedures, and Practices
Requests
Nos. 15 through 29 seek: (15) documents relating to Defendant’s rules,
policies, or procedures since 2017 regarding refunds or replacements in
California under the Song-Beverly Act; (16-17) documents relating to call
center policies for escalating customer complaints and creating Service
Activities relating to defects; (18) documents relating to policies and
procedures for determining whether vehicles should be repurchased or replaced;
(19-20) documents relating to flow charts for escalating complaints and flow
charts for evaluating whether vehicles qualify for repurchase or replacement;
(21) documents relating to training materials for calculation of repurchases,
and (22) documents relating to policies or procedures to advise customers to
deliver vehicles for further diagnosis or repair, rather than offering
repurchase or replacement. (Separate Statement Nos. 15-22.)
Materials
concerning corporate policies and practices relating to reacquisition of
vehicles are admissible. (E.g., Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35
Cal.4th 1191, 1198-99; Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90
Cal.App.4th 1094, 1104-1105.) Admissible evidence is discoverable. (Glenfed
Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117-18.)
Plaintiff has therefore demonstrated good cause for these requests.
Requests
Nos. 23 through 29 seek: (23-24) documents
relating to Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals provided to authorized repair
facilities regarding whether repairs should be covered under warranty from 2017
to present, (25) documents relating to Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals
provided to authorized repair facilities for repeated repair visits for similar
complaints from 2017 to present, (26) documents relating to Warranty Policy and
Procedure Manuals provided to authorized repair facilities as to what type of
repairs require approval in order to be covered under warranty; (27) documents
relating to the length of test drives required for
coverage, (28) documents relating to what type of repairs will be
reimbursed as warranty repairs, and (29) documents
relating to how to handle customer concerns that are not duplicated at
the time of the repair visit, from 2017 to the
present.
These materials are
relevant to whether defendant’s internal policies “erect hidden obstacles to
[plaintiff’s] ability […] to obtain redress under the [Song-Beverly] Act,”
which goes to whether Defendant acted in good faith. (Oregel, supra, 90
Cal. App.4th 1094, 1104-1105.) Plaintiff has therefore demonstrated good cause
for these requests.
Again,
as to Nos. 15-29, Defendant
responds that it will
comply in full but then asserts objections without identifying what documents
and things will fall within any category of item in
the demand to which an objection is being made. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240,
subd. (b).) Further, Defendant has failed to address its objections. As such,
the court compels a further response as to Nos. 15-29.
(Request
Nos. 30-31) Same or Similar Defects in Other Vehicles of the Same Year, Make,
and Model as the Subject Vehicle
Nos.
30-31 seek: (30) all
documents, in the form of a list or compilation, of other customer complaints
in your electronically stored information of database(s) that are substantially
similar to complaints made by plaintiff with respect to the subject vehicle in
other 2019 Jeep Compass vehicles; and (31) documents relating to Field Service
Action issued, or in the process of being issued, in response to complaints
experienced by Plaintiff as described in Defendant’s warranty history/summary
and within the line items of the repair orders created at Defendant’s
authorized repair facility.
Evidence
of similar defects in other vehicles are both relevant and admissible. (Donlen
v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 153.) (See also Doppes v.
Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 971 [holding that the
trial court’s approval of a discovery referee’s report and recommendation of
sanctions for failure to produce documents of this nature relating to the
subject defect in all affected vehicles was not an abuse of discretion].) Admissible
evidence is discoverable. (Glenfed, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at 1117-18.)
As such, good cause has been shown.
As to No. 31, Defendant responds that it will comply in part but then asserts
objections without identifying what documents and things will fall within any category of item in the demand to which an
objection is being made. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b).) In addition,
Defendant has not justified its objections. (Kirkland v.¿Sup.Ct¿(2002)
95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)¿¿¿The court compels a further
response to Nos. 30-31.
Accordingly,
the motion is GRANTED. Defendant is
ordered to provide further responses within 30 days of this order.
Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of the ruling.