Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV19550, Date: 2025-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV19550    Hearing Date: April 9, 2025    Dept: 45

JOHN NAZARIAN vs JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, et al.

plaintiff john nazarian’s motio to compel further responses to plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, set one and request for monetary sanctions

Date of Hearing:        April 9, 2025                                                   Trial Date:       None set.

Department:              45                                                                    Case No.:        24STCV19550

Moving Party:            Plaintiff John Nazarian

Responding Party:     Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC  

Meet and Confer:      Yes. (Brumfield Decl.)  

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action. On August 5, 2024, Plaintiff John Nazarian filed a complaint against Defendants Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC and Jaguar Land Rover Santa Monica for violations of the Song-Beverly Act and negligent repair.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff John Nazarian’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED, in part and DENIED in part.

discussion

Plaintiff moves the court for an order to strike Defendant’s objections and compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant, Set One Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 15, 16, 23, 24, 29, 30, 39, 40, 51, 52, 61, 62, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 81, 82, 89, 91, 96, 100, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 141 and 142 (collectively, the “Requests”) and production of all responsive documents corresponding to those Requests. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Defendant for its unjustifiable abuses of the discovery process.

A party may move to compel further written response to a request for production if the responding party’s statement of compliance is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, or an objection is without merit. (CCP § 2031.310(a).) To prevail, the party moving for the order must first offer specific facts demonstrating “good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) 

Plaintiff maintains the Requests seek documents relating to Defendant’s internal investigation and analysis of the Engine and Transmission Defects plaguing Plaintiff’s vehicle and establishing that Defendant previously knew of such Defects but nevertheless refused to repurchase the vehicle. However, Plaintiff argues Defendant has responded with meritless, boilerplate objections along with unilateral limitations on the scope of discovery. Moreover, to date, Defendant has failed to produce any documents and Defendant has failed to provide e-mails and other electronically stored information or search protocol.

Defendant opposes. The court notes their opposition is untimely. (LaCour Decl. ¶8.) The opposition was due March 26, 2025. However, Defendant did not file or serve their opposition until April 2, 2025—five days before the hearing. The court uses its discretion to consider the opposition. If at the hearing Plaintiff asserts they would like time to file a reply, Plaintiff may do so.

RPD No. 1

The court finds that although this request is relevant, it is overbroad because “documents” is not clearly defined nor is it reasonably narrowed to a relevant time period.  However, defendants aver that they have now complied and produced certain documents.  Accordingly, the motion as to this RPD is moot. 

RPD No. 2

The court finds that although this request is relevant, it is not limited to documents regarding the alleged defect. The court finds the objections without merit except as to attorney client privilege and a privilege log should be provided. However, defendants aver that they have now complied and produced certain documents.  Accordingly, the motion as to this RPD is moot.   

RPD No. 3

The court finds the response sufficient. Defendant states JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot comply with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA. Plaintiffs do not provide the court with any evidence regarding the likelihood that these documents exist.

RPD No. 7

The court finds the supplemental response sufficient. Defendant states JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot comply with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA.

RPD No. 15

The court finds the supplemental response sufficient. Defendant states JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot comply with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA.

RPD No. 16

The court finds the supplemental response sufficient. Defendant states JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot comply with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA.

RPD No. 23

The court finds the response sufficient (the court notes Defendant did not provide a supplemental response). Defendant states JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot comply with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA. If defendant has withheld any documents on the basis of attorney-client and/or attorney work product privileges, a privilege log must be prepared.  

RPD No. 24

The court finds the response sufficient (the court notes Defendant did not provide a supplemental response). Defendant states JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot comply with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA. If defendant has withheld any documents on the basis of attorney-client and/or attorney work product privileges, for which a privilege log must be prepared.  

RPD No. 29

The court finds further response necessary. Defendant must comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 when stating it will comply in part. All objections are overruled except attorney-client and attorney work product.

RPD No. 30

Same as above. The court finds further response necessary. Defendant must comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 when stating it will comply in part. All objections are overruled except attorney-client and attorney work product.

RPD No. 39

The court finds the objections are boilerplate. However, Defendant states JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot comply with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA. Plaintiff fails to explain that the documents likely exist Defendant’s possession, custody, or control.  No further response is required. 

RPD No. 40

The court finds the objections are boilerplate. However, Defendant states JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot comply with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA. Plaintiff fails to explain that the documents likely exist Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. No further response is required. 

RPD No. 51

The court finds the objections are boilerplate. However, Defendant states JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot comply with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA. Plaintiff fails to explain that the documents likely exist Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. No further response is required. 

RPD No. 52

The court finds the objections are boilerplate. However, Defendant states JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot comply with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA. Plaintiff fails to explain that the documents likely exist Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. No further response is required. 

RPD No. 61

The court finds the objections are boilerplate. However, Defendant states JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot comply with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA. Plaintiff fails to explain that the documents likely exist in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. No further response is required. 

RPD No. 62

The court finds the objections are boilerplate. However, Defendant states JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot comply with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA. Plaintiff fails to explain that the documents likely exist in Defendant’s control Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. No further response is required. 

RPD No. 67

The court finds the objections are boilerplate. However, Defendant states JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot comply with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA. Plaintiff fails to explain that the documents likely exist in Defendant’s control Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. No further response is required. 

RPD No. 68

The court finds the objections are boilerplate. However, Defendant states JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot comply with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA. Plaintiff fails to explain that the documents likely exist in Defendant’s control Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. No further response is required. 

RPD No. 71

Defendant responds they have already complied in part by producing the list of field actions and technical bulletins available for the year/make/model of the subject vehicle, as well as any field actions (including recalls, if any) and technical bulletins identified in the vehicle’s repair/service history. As to electronic emails however, JLRNA conducted a diligent search and no documents ever existed.

The court finds further response necessary. Defendant must comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 when stating it will comply in part.

RPD No. 72

Defendant responds they have already complied in part by producing the list of field actions and technical bulletins available for the year/make/model of the subject vehicle, as well as any field actions (including recalls, if any) and technical bulletins identified in the vehicle’s repair/service history. As to electronic emails however, JLRNA conducted a diligent search and no documents ever existed.

The court finds further response necessary. Defendant must comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 when stating it will comply in part. The objections are without merit.

RPD No. 73

The court finds the objections are boilerplate. However, Defendant states JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot comply with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA. Plaintiff fails to explain that the documents likely exist in Defendant’s control Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. No further response is required. 

RPD No. 74

The court finds the objections are boilerplate. However, Defendant states JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot comply with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA. Plaintiff fails to explain that the documents likely exist in Defendant’s control Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. No further response is required. 

RPD No. 81

The court finds further response necessary. Defendant must comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 when stating it will comply in part. The objections are without merit.

RPD No. 82

The court finds further response necessary. Defendant must comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 when stating it will comply in part. The objections are without merit.

RPD No. 89

The court finds the supplemental response sufficient.

RPD No. 91

The court finds the supplemental response sufficient.

RPD No. 96

The court finds further response necessary. Plaintiff has shown good cause and the objections are boilerplate.

RPD No. 100

JLRNA has agreed to produce responsive pre-litigation documents subject to entry of an agreed protective order.

RPD No. 114

The court finds further response necessary. The objections are without merit. It is not clear whether Defendant referred Plaintiff to NHTSA when it has documents in their custody, possession or control or they have entirely no documents in their custody, possession or control.

RPD No. 115

The court finds further response necessary. The objections are without merit. It is not clear whether Defendant referred Plaintiff to NHTSA when it has documents in their custody, possession or control or they have entirely no documents in their custody, possession or control.

RPD No. 116

The court finds further response necessary. The objections are without merit. It is not clear whether Defendant referred Plaintiff to NHTSA when it has documents in their custody, possession or control or they have entirely no documents in their custody, possession or control.

RPD No. 117

The court finds further response necessary. The objections are without merit. It is not clear whether Defendant referred Plaintiff to NHTSA when it has documents in their custody, possession or control or they have entirely no documents in their custody, possession or control.

RPD No. 118

The court finds further response necessary. The objections are without merit. It is not clear whether Defendant referred Plaintiff to NHTSA when it has documents in their custody, possession or control or they have entirely no documents in their custody, possession or control.

RPD No. 119

The court finds further response necessary. The objections are without merit. It is not clear whether Defendant referred Plaintiff to NHTSA when it has documents in their custody, possession or control or they have entirely no documents in their custody, possession or control.

RPD No. 141

The court finds the objections are boilerplate. However, Defendant states JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot comply with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA. Plaintiff fails to explain that the documents likely exist in Defendant’s control Defendant’s possession, custody, or contro No further response is required. 

l.

RPD No. 142

The court finds the objections are boilerplate. However, Defendant states JLRNA has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and cannot comply with this request as the requested documents never existed or have never been in possession, custody, or control of JLRNA. Plaintiff fails to explain that the documents likely exist in Defendant’s control Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. No further response is required. 

Sanctions

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.  The defendant’s position in responding and opposing to this motion was substantially justified.