Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22GDCV00537, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCV00537    Hearing Date: November 8, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          Plaintiff Wendy Rivera (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant Volvo Cars of North America, LLC (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One). In addition, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,287.50 against Defendant and its counsel of record. By way of background, on May 15, 2021, Plaintiff purchased a 2018 Volvo XC90 (“Vehicle”). (Compl., ¶ 15.) Plaintiff alleged that the Vehicle was delivered to them with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty, which “manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period, including but not limited to electrical, transmission, engine, and exterior.” (Compl., ¶ 16.) Plaintiff also sued PVC Puente Hills, LLC dba Penske Hills LLC (“Penske Volvo”, erroneously sued as “PVC Puente Hills, LLC dba Penske Volvo Cars”) for negligent repair.

Although the notice of motion seeks further responses to RFP Nos. 18, 33-41, and 45-46, the separate statement only addresses RFP Nos. 18, 37-41, and 45-46. (Compare Notice of Motion at p. 1 with Separate Statement.) The Court only rules on the RFPs listed in the Separate Statement.

RFP No. 18: Plaintiff requests the franchise agreement between Defendant and the dealership which sold the Subject Vehicle to her which was in effect on the date of the sale. Plaintiff argues that the franchise agreement is necessary because the document will show whether Defendant requires dealerships to report warranty repairs or the handling of lemon law repurchases. In turn, whether Defendant was aware of the repairs to the Subject Vehicle is probative of whether Defendant committed a “willful” failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Act by refusing to promptly repurchase or replace the Subject Vehicle. Plaintiff also argues that the franchise agreement will establish that the dealership is Defendant’s agent.

          In opposition, Defendant argues that Subject Vehicle was sold to Plaintiff by nonparty Rusnak/Pasadena, whereas Plaintiff presented their vehicle for repair or repurchase to Penske Volvo. Defendant contends that any agreement it has with Rusnak/Pasadena is irrelevant to this action. The Court agrees. Plaintiff failed to show good cause for the production of this document. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to RFP No. 18.

RFP Nos. 37-39: Plaintiff requests Defendant produce documents sufficient to identify all OBDII codes, vehicle symptom codes, and vehicle component repair codes for the same year, make and model as the Subject Vehicle i.e., all 2018 Volvo XC90s. Plaintiff does not explain in her memorandum of points and authorities, separate statement, or her reply brief why further responses to these requests for production are necessary. Although Plaintiff addresses Defendant’s objections, Plaintiff does not show how evidence of these various codes is relevant to any disputed fact. (Sosa v CashCall, Inc. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 42, 47.) The motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 37-39.

RFP Nos. 40-41: Plaintiff requests Defendant produce documents sufficient to identify all customer complaint codes and labor operation codes from 2021 to present. These requests, like RFP Nos. 37 through 39, are unsupported by any showing of good cause in Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities, separate statement, or reply brief. They are also overbroad because they are not limited to customer complaint codes or labor operation codes associated with the repair of vehicles in California of the same make, model, and year of the Subject Vehicle. The motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 30-41.

RFP Nos. 45-46: Plaintiff requests Defendant produce complaints by customers with 2018 XC90 vehicles about repairs under warranty as well as any documents evidencing warranty repairs to 2018 XC90 vehicles. Once again, Plaintiff fails to set forth specific facts justifying the production of these documents. The Court also notes that the requests are overbroad because they seek information about complaints and repairs which are not related to the alleged defects of the Subject Vehicle. The motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 45-46.

          Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff’s counsel of record in the reduced amount of $1,890, consisting of 7 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $270, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this order.

Dated this 8th day of November, 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.