Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00441, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00441    Hearing Date: January 20, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On July 7, 2022, plaintiffs Maria Garcia and Cristina Garcia (“Plaintiffs”) filed this lemon law action against defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Defendant”).  Trial is currently scheduled for January 8, 2024.  Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel further responses to requests for production, set one, Nos. 3, 5, 9, 16, 17, 18, 22, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 on November 22, 2022. The motion is opposed. 

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to a demand for inspection if the propounding party deems that an answer or statement of compliance is evasive or incomplete, or that an objection is “without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) Such a motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery sought and be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (b), 2031.210, subd. (b).)

III.        DISCUSSION

After review of the papers submitted by the parties, it appears that this motion was filed on November 22, 2022, without specific consideration of the documents produced by Defendant on November 2, 2022. (See Opp., pp. 1-2 & Reply, p. 2.) Plaintiffs argue in reply that Defendant still refuses to produce a vast majority of the documents sought, namely, that Defendant refuses to produce any documents relating to Volkswagen’s knowledge of the prevalence of, and internal investigation and analysis into, the same or similar defects experienced by Plaintiffs in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model. (Reply, p. 2.)

Defendant asserts that it has properly responded to Requests 3, 5, 9, 16-18, 22. Plaintiff does not dispute this. The motion as to those requests would thus appear to be moot.

Remaining at issue, then, are the requests for production of documents numbered 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37, with respect to which Defendant asserts, for various reasons, it has no obligation to respond.

With respect to these the Court rules as follows

RPD 32:  All DOCUMENTS evidencing or describing statistics for the number of repurchases and replacements Defendant has made in California in response to consumers’ personal requests (i.e. a consumer request without an attorney) from 2010 to present.

DENIED.

RPD 33: All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe the numbers of owners 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan vehicles purchased in California who have complained of any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiffs presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.

GRANTED as follows: All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe the customer complaints by owners 2018 of Volkswagen Tiguan vehicles purchased in California who have complained of any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiffs presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.

RPD 34: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to all Technical Service Bulletins (“TSBs”) which have been issued for 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan vehicles, including, but not limited to, complete copies of all such Technical Service Bulletins that involve any part, component, subcomponent, system, assembly, or sub-assembly for which the SUBJECT VEHICLE was subject to one or more repair attempts as reflected in YOUR Warranty Claim Records, or in the repair orders produced during discovery in this case.

GRANTED as follows: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to all Technical Service Bulletins (“TSBs”) which have been issued for 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan vehicles that involve any part, component, subcomponent, system, assembly, or sub-assembly for which the SUBJECT VEHICLE was subject to one or more repair attempts as reflected in YOUR Warranty Claim Records, or in the repair orders produced during discovery in this case. Defendant is not required to do a search of emails.

RPD 35:  All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to all Recalls which have been issued for 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan vehicles that involve any part, component, sub-component, system, assembly, or sub-assembly for which the SUBJECT VEHICLE was subject to one or more repair attempts as reflected in YOUR Warranty Claim Records or in the repair orders produced during discovery in this case.

GRANTED.

RPD 36: All DOCUMENTS which describe or discuss above-average repair rates to 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan vehicles.

DENIED.

RPD 37: All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe sales brochures, literature or any other promotional materials provided or distributed by YOU regarding vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

DENIED.

IV.         CONCLUSION

The Requests for Production of Documents numbered 3, 5, 9, 16-18, 22 are DENIED as moot.

The Requests for Production of Documents numbered 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 are GRANTED, GRANTED with modifications, or DENIED as set forth above.

Moving party to give notice.

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.