Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00286, Date: 2025-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00286    Hearing Date: May 2, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On August 12, 2024, upon motion by plaintiff Maritsa Herrera (“Plaintiff”), the Court ordered defendant American Honda Motor Co. (“Defendant”) to serve further responses and produce all documents responsive to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 16, 19, 20, 21, 32, and 42, within 60 days, i.e., October 11, 2024 (“August 12 Order”).

On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion after failing to receive further responses and documents. Plaintiff requests the Court order Defendant to comply with its August 12 Order and to impose prospective monetary sanctions in the amount of $500 for each day, after an initial ten-day period, for each day that Defendant does not make a full and complete production of documents.

On April 21, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition brief stating that the motion was moot because responses and non-confidential documents were served on April 18 and April 21, 2025, respectively. Defendant requests the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions on the grounds that its noncompliance was inadvertent and not intentional.

On April 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply brief and supplemental declaration reiterating her request for sanctions on the grounds that the further responses served by Defendant were not Code-compliant and the production was incomplete. Namely, Defendant has not produced any emails, memos, or investigations regarding the Subject Vehicle’s electrical defects, nor has Defendant produced any policies or procedures used in its evaluation of consumers’ request for vehicle repurchase.

With respect to the production of documents, the Court notes that the Court recently granted the stipulated protective order on April 23, 2025. Therefore, to the extent that any documents were withheld on that basis, they must be produced. This includes those documents relating to two technical service bulletins (“TSB”), TSB Nos. 20-047 and 20-058, which are responsive to RFP Nos. 16, 20, and 21.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED in part and Defendant is ordered to provide further Code-compliant responses to RFP Nos. 16, 20, and 21 and produce all responsive documents, including documents related to the two above-referenced TSBs, within 7 days of the date of this order.

The Court is aware that Defendant did not submit any evidence that its failure to produce documents and serve further responses was unintentional or due to inadvertence. However, the Court declines to impose prospective sanctions because Plaintiff fails to justify the amount requested, i.e., $500 per day, and Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. Defendant should note that the Court’s decision in this specific instance does not preclude the imposition of monetary, issue, evidentiary, or even terminating sanctions in the future if Defendant fails to comply with any court order, such as this one.

Dated this 2nd day of May 2025

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.