Judge Virginia Keeny, Case Number: 24STCV21925, Date: 2025-05-09 Tentative Ruling

plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set one

This is a lemon law action. On August 27, 2024, Plaintiff Karla Vallecillo Gutierrez filed a complaint against Defendant Kia America, Inc. for violations of the Song-Beverly Act.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED in part; DENIED in part.

Plaintiff Karla Vallecillo Gutierrez moves for an order to strike Defendant Kia America, Inc.’s objections and compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1 – 31. Plaintiff makes the motion on the grounds Defendant´s objections are not code-compliant and Defendant failed to provide adequate responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, parties may move for a further response to requests for production of documents where a statement of compliance is incomplete or where a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. 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).)

Plaintiff seeks further responses to Plaintiff’s RFP, Set One, Nos. 1 – 31. Plaintiff argues Defendant’s objections are without merit. To the extent Defendant has objected on the grounds of undue burden, Plaintiff argues Defendant has failed to identify the types or categories of ESI sources that are not reasonably accessible. Plaintiff further argues Defendant stands by its erroneous position that Plaintiff is only entitled to discovery relating to Plaintiff’s own individual vehicle. Plaintiff maintains they may seek information that can establish the existence of defects in the Subject Vehicle, as well as Defendant’s knowledge of the existence of similar or related defects. These documents are imperative as they are probative of nonconformities regarding the Subject Vehicle. Moreover, these documents contain technical information that Plaintiff’s expert will require to provide reliable opinion testimony regarding the nature of the defects in the Subject Vehicle.

In opposition, Defendant argues they provided code-compliant responses to each of the requests at issue, agreed to produce confidential documents subject to a protective order, or appropriately objected. Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel is already in possession of all of the documents cited in all of the documents. As for Defendant’s objections, Defendant maintains the requests are overly broad, not reasonably particularized, and fails to provide Defendant with little (if any) guidance about the documents Plaintiff actually seeks.

The court DENIES the motion to compel further responses, in part. The court finds the requests are relevant but agrees some of the requests are overbroad. Many requests seek documents from 2020 to the present. However, the Subject Vehicle is from 2021. Accordingly, document requests should be limited to only vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle sold within California. Moreover, requests where Plaintiff asks for documents regarding policies and procedures that are not limited to the Subject Vehicle or relevant time period are overbroad. To the extent that any request would require Defendant to produce privileged material, Defendant is not required to produce the material.¿ However, Defendant must produce a privilege log.

However, the court does find RFP 1-14 require further response, as the requests are properly framed to relate only to the subject vehicle and defendant’s objections are not well taken. Defendants are ordered to produce all responsive documents within 30 days with a supplemental verified response removing all objections except for attorney client and attorney work product privileges.

With respect to Requests Nos. 15- 22 , the court finds the requests to be overbroad as to time. Defendant is ordered to produce the requested documents for the period from the time of the purchase to the present. These documents may be produced subject to a protective order if they contain proprietary information.

As for RFP 23-25, the responses are sufficient. As for RFPs, 26-31, the court finds the requests overbroad, burdensome, vaguge and oppressive and will not order further responses.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED in part; DENIED in part.

[1] Defendant argues Plaintiff did not meet and confer with Kia in good faith. Defendant asserts rather than meeting and conferring based on Defendant’s further document production, Plaintiff kept the instant Motion on the court’s calendar. The court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently shown they made a reasonable and good faith attempt at an information resolution.