Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00441, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00441    Hearing Date: December 14, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

          This lemon law action concerns plaintiffs Maria Garcia and Cristina Garcia (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) lease of a 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiffs move for an order compelling defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Defendant”) to provide further responses and produce documents responsive to RFP Nos. 1 through 50 from their Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two).

          On December 1, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition brief.

On December 7, 2023, Plaintiffs filed evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Chris Lewis. No reply brief is on file.

II.          DISCUSSION

A.   RFP Nos. 1 through 9 (Warranty, Repurchase, and Customer Relation Policies, Procedures, and Practices)

Defendant argues that this motion should be denied because the requests at issue are substantively the same as the document requests included in Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production (“Set One”). In particular, Defendant argues that RFP Nos. 1 to 9 from Set Two are duplicative of RFP Nos. 4, 7, 16, 19-21, 23, and 25-31 in Set One. Notably, nowhere in Plaintiffs’ boilerplate meet and confer letters or separate statement do they address this claim. Furthermore, Plaintiffs did not submit a substantive reply brief. The Court has reviewed RFP Nos. 1 to 9 and concludes that they are duplicative. Accordingly, the motion as to RFP Nos. 1 to 9 seeking documents related to Defendant’s warranty, repurchase, and customer relation policies, procedures, and practices is DENIED.

B.   RFP Nos. 10 through 78 (Defendant’s Knowledge of the Same Defects Affecting Other Vehicles)

RFP Nos. 10-78 demand documents (including “electronic mails”) relating to other 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan vehicles which experienced the same defects that affected the Subject Vehicle and include the defined phrases “Electrical Defects”, “Engine Defects”, and “Transmission Defects.”

Defendant mainly argues that undertaking a search and review to produce documents responsive to RFP Nos. 10 through 78 would cause undue burden because they essentially demand a search and review of documents for 120,799 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan vehicles located across the country even though the same information has already been provided for 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan vehicles in California. (Opp., pp. 9-10; Tallent Decl., ¶¶12-16.)

Defendant submits the declaration of Chris Lewis which sets forth the factual basis for Defendant’s contention that undertaking such a search and review would cause undue burden. Plaintiffs object to portions of this declaration on boilerplate grounds that it lacks foundation and personal knowledge, is irrelevant, improper lay opinion, hearsay, and mere argument. Objection Nos. 6, 7, and 10 are SUSTAINED on the grounds that Lewis has not shown that he has personal knowledge of the document productions previously made by Defendant. (Lewis Decl., ¶ 10 [statements based on information and belief].) The rest are overruled. Lewis provides an adequate foundation for his testimony regarding the amount of work it would take to undertake this search and review by stating the source of his knowledge (in his role as the Manager of Products Analysis Group). It is not an “improper” lay opinion because this is not a topic which requires expert testimony. The declaration is certainly relevant to the issue of undue burden and is not mere argument.  

Lewis states that Plaintiffs are demanding that Defendant “review its records related to all 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan vehicles and all 120,799 owners and lessees, regardless of the state that they live in, the consumer laws applicable to them, whether their concerns are caused by defect or otherwise, the environmental conditions the vehicles were driven in, the different driving and load conditions, the timing and nature of the different maintenance performed, whether the concerns were fixed or not, or whether the complained of conditions were covered by VWGoA’s warranty” for specific defects. Plaintiffs convolutedly define “ELECTRICAL DEFECTS”, “ENGINE DEFECTS” and “TRANSMISSION DEFECTS” as to include a list of symptoms that spans 1.5 pages. Lewis states that Defendant does not organize information by “customer complaint” or by “possible symptom”; rather, information is organized by vehicle identification number and the parts serviced or repaired and charged to warranty. Warranty claims cannot be searched using key words but can only be searched using the particular parts potentially associated with a complaint about a vehicle. Lewis explains that in order to search for responsive information regarding all 120,799 vehicles, an individual with technical expertise would have to review and analyze every document pertaining to each vehicle, in detail, to determine whether they are conceivably relevant to the litigation.

In light of Defendant’s earlier productions and the testimony provided by Lewis, the Court finds that the requests, to the extent that they demand documents relating to other 2018 Volkswagen Tiguans outside of California, are unduly burdensome. Insofar as the requests demand documents relating to 2018 Volkswagen Tiguans inside California, they are duplicative.

Last, Defendant argues that RFP Nos. 10-78 are overbroad because they demand “all documents” including “electronic mails.” The Court previously ruled that Defendant was not required to do a search of emails as part of producing all documents relating to technical service bullets issued for 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan vehicles involving the same part, component, subcomponent, system, assembly, or sub-assembly for which the Subject Vehicle was subject to one or more repair attempts. The Court imposes this same limitation to RFP Nos. 10-78.

III.        CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED in its entirety. Defendants’ objection to RFP Nos. 1-9 on the grounds that it are duplicative of prior discovery is sustained. Defendants’ objections to RFP Nos. 10 through 78 on the grounds that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome and duplicative is also sustained.

Dated this 14th day of September, 2023

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.