Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 22AHCV00286, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00286, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Marita Herrera (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Nos. 16, 19, 20, 21, 32, and 42.

In its opposition brief, Defendant states that it will provide further responses and produce all responsive documents to RFP Nos. 32 and 42, but argues that further responses for RFP Nos. 16, 19, 20, and 21 should not be ordered because Plaintiff is not entitled to information about other vehicles and consumer claims. Based on Defendant’s representation, the Court will only address the merits of the remaining 4 document requests: RFP Nos. 16, 19, 20, and 21.

For background, Plaintiff alleges that she purchased a 2021 Honda Pilot (“Subject Vehicle”) which suffered from a defective audio system, defective electrical system, and defective braking system. (Compl., ¶ 12.) Plaintiff requests documents, ESI, and electronic mail relating to any internal analysis or investigation of the “Electrical Defect” in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle. (RFP No. 16.) Plaintiff also requests all documents, ESI, and electronic mail regarding customer complaints. Claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to the “Electrical Defect” as well as all documents concerning Defendant’s response to each complaint, claim or reported failure. (RFP No. 19.) Plaintiff additionally seeks documents “regarding the failure rate of vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle as a result of the Electrical Defect” in addition to “any fixes for the Electrical Defect in vehicles of the same year, make, and model.” (RFP Nos. 20, 21.)

As an initial matter, the Court notes that the objection based on any pending motion to compel arbitration is meritless. Defendant’s discovery obligations were not placed on hold merely by filing a motion to compel arbitration. Defendant did not seek a stay order while the motion to compel arbitration was pending and the Court did not enter one.

Defendant also objects to these requests on the grounds that they are vague and overbroad and argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to information about other vehicles. The Court rejects this view. First, the terms used, such as “analysis”, “fixes”, “failures”, and “defects” are not vague or ambiguous. Second, evidence of problems in other vehicles which are similar to those observed in the Subject Vehicle are relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information about Defendant’s compliance with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and whether it acted in good faith. Information about whether other vehicles exhibited similar problems is also probative of whether the Subject Vehicle was in fact defective and if Defendant was aware that it had no means of fixing it.

Defendant also objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the term “Electrical Defect” as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. Plaintiff’s definition of “Electrical Defect” includes “defects which result in symptoms of: failure of the windows to roll up when the vehicle is in accessory mode, flickering of the lights when the vehicle is off and the brake pedal is being engaged, the infotainment screen turning black, the infotainment screen turning green, the cruise control being inoperable, the brake message illuminating spontaneously while the vehicle is in motion, flickering of the dashboard when taking phone calls, Apple CarPlay being unavailable at times, the gauge cluster flickering, malfunction of apple CarPlay, premature battery failure; and any other concern identified in the repair history for the subject 2021 Honda Pilot; Vehicle identification #5FNYF6H27MB004774.” This list of symptoms tracks the allegations of the Complaint because Plaintiff alleges that her vehicle suffers from a defective audio system, electrical system, and braking system. (Compl., ¶ 12.) In fact, if Plaintiff did not provide this list of symptoms, Defendant would likely object on the grounds that the phrase “Electrical Defect” is vague and ambiguous. The Court is unpersuaded by Defendant’s claim that it would have to expend a “vast amount of time and resources” to produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s document requests because Defendant provides no evidence describing how this effort would be overly burdensome, such as identifying the number of hours it would take to gather or review documents which would potentially be responsive.

In light of the foregoing, the Court overrules Defendant’s objections and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. Defendant is ordered to serve further responses to RFP Nos. 16, 19-21, 32, and 42 within 20 days of the date of this Order and produce all responsive documents in its possession, custody, and control.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.