Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV00632, Date: 2025-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00632    Hearing Date: March 17, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          Plaintiff Pedro Gomez (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Nos. 7, 10-14, and 27-30, and to produce all documents responsive to those requests.

          This case arises from Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2022 Nissan Sentra (“Vehicle”) on or about July 4, 2022. (Compl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges that during the warranty period, the Vehicle contained or developed defects with its audio system, engine, and electrical system. (Compl., ¶ 11.)

          Plaintiff’s RFPs include the term “ELECTRICAL DEFECT”, which is defined as

a defect(s) in the SUBJECT VEHICLE which results in the following symptoms: radio turns off by itself; radio resets by itself; radio restarts by itself; A/V master control unit failure and/or replacement; distance sensor turns on when not necessary; Vehicle turns off when at a stop; and/or Vehicle turns off while driving.

(Rivero Decl., Ex. 8, p. 2.)

          RFP No. 7 requests the “Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual(s) (or equivalent document) published by [Defendant] and provided to [Defendant’s] authorized repair facility(ies), within the state of California, from 2022 to the present.”

          Defendant states it has performed a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and will comply with this Request in full by producing all documents identified in RFP No. 21. Plaintiff complains that this response is confusing and not Code-compliant because it allows Defendant to selectively withhold documents. In opposition, Defendant argues that the request is overbroad as to time, scope, and geography. Defendant also argues that it has already fulfilled its discovery obligations by producing all responsive internal policy and procedure documents for handling consumer complaints and repurchases under the Song-Beverly Act.

          The Court overrules the objection on the grounds that the request is overbroad because it is limited to manuals provided to authorized repair facilities within the State of California and for the period beginning in 2022, which is when Plaintiff bought his Vehicle. Also, there is no evidence supporting an objection based on undue burden. Last, if Defendant has already produced all responsive documents, Defendant should not have a problem providing a further response which complies with the Code’s requirement to state that the RFP will be complied with in full (instead of adding the caveat that it will only produce certain identified documents).

          Therefore, the motion as to RFP No. 7 is GRANTED.

RFP Nos. 10-14 demand documents relating to the internal analyses and investigations, customer complaints, reported failures, warranty claims, and failure rates of vehicles of the same year, make, and model which suffer from the same ELECTRICAL DEFECT as the Vehicle. Defendant argues that documents regarding other vehicles other than Plaintiffs are irrelevant and that such discovery is overbroad. The Court disagrees. The requests are limited to documents regarding vehicles of the same year, make, and model, and the documents sought relate to the existence of the alleged defects in the Vehicle as well as Defendant’s knowledge of the Vehicle’s alleged defects and whether they could be fixed. The Court also overrules Defendant’s objections on the grounds that compliance and production of electronically stored information (ESI) would require undue burden because Defendant provides no evidence of undue burden in accessing or searching certain types of ESI. Last, the Court disagrees that the definition of ELECTRICAL DEFECT is made in “layperson” terms because the words used in the definition are those found in the repair history for the Vehicle and presumably used by employees of the authorized repair facility.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to RPF Nos. 10-14.

As for RFP Nos. 27-30, Plaintiff demands communications between Defendant and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) regarding the ELECTRICAL DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make and model as Plaintiff’s Vehicle as well as all NHTSA complaints, Early Warning Reports submitted to the NHTSA, and all transportation recall, accountability, and documentation (TREAD) reports submitted concerning vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Vehicle.

          Again, Defendant vaguely refers to the cost and burden of identifying and producing responsive documents without substantiating its claims of undue burden. Defendant also argues that information about other vehicles is irrelevant and the use of the term “ELECTRICAL DEFECT” is vague, ambiguous and overbroad. For the same reasons as stated above, the Court rejects these arguments and the motion is GRANTED with respect to RFP Nos. 27-30.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response with respect to this RFPs is GRANTED in its entirety. As no parties request sanctions, none will be imposed.

Defendant shall provide further responses and produce responsive documents in compliance with this order within 20 days.  

Dated this 17th day of March 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.