Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV01714, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01714    Hearing Date: August 21, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          Plaintiffs Nancy Trejo and Miguel Garcia (“Plaintiffs”) move for an order compelling defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to their First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Nos. 18, 45, and 46. Plaintiffs also request that the Court impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,310 against Defendant and its attorneys of record.

Plaintiff’s RFP No. 18 requests “[t]he operative Franchise Agreement, if any, on the date of sale of the SUBJECT VEHICLE between YOU and the dealership that sold the SUBJECT VEHICLE to Plaintiff(s).”

          In response, Defendant asserted various objections and stated that it is unable to comply with this request because it has no responsive documents and such documents have never existed.

          In its separate statement, Defendant states that it would “be willing to provide a further response and produce its standard Automobile Dealers Sales and Service Agreement which contains the operative terms in effect for the authorized Honda dealership which sold the Subject Vehicle.” Defendant states that “[t]here is simply no reason to produce the full agreement in light of its sensitive nature since [Defendant] would be willing to serve a further verified discovery response which states that the terms in the standard agreement are identical to those in the signed version.”

          Plaintiffs agree in their reply brief to accept this production and further response. Therefore, the Court proceeds to analyze Plaintiffs’ motion with respect to RFP Nos. 45 and 46.

RFP No. 45 requests “[a]ll DOCUMENTS evidencing complaints by owners of 2021 Honda Accord vehicles regarding any of the complaints that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented to YOUR or YOUR authorized repair facilities for repair during the warranty period.” RFP No. 46 requests “[a]ll DOCUMENTS evidencing warranty repairs to 2021 Honda Accord vehicles regarding any of the components that YOU or YOUR authorized repair facilities performed repairs on under warranty.”

Plaintiffs argue that good cause exists for the production of these documents because they are relevant to prove whether Defendant’s knew of widespread problems with the same or similar defects and nonconformities as Plaintiff’s vehicle (and the components within) and willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiffs contend that their request is appropriately limited to other vehicles of the same year, make, and model, which experienced the same defects and nonconformities as their own vehicle, and that Defendant fails to justify its objections that the request is overbroad, vague, or ambiguous. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant cannot show that producing these documents would cause undue burden.

Defendant argues that records involving other vehicles are irrelevant. The Court disagrees. Records about other vehicles are relevant to proving the existence of a defect or nonconformity as well as Defendant’s knowledge of such defect or nonconformity. However, the Court agrees with Defendant that that RFP Nos. 45 and 46 are overbroad, vague, and ambiguous because Plaintiffs’ vehicle was brought in for repair for various issues over the course of four years and it is unclear which of the defects/nonconformities Plaintiffs are basing their case upon. The Court additionally notes that even the Complaint does not identify any particular complaints, defects, or nonconformities that allegedly affected Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED with respect to RFP Nos. 45 and 46.

The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED because they were both substantially justified in bringing and opposing this motion.

Dated this 21st day of August, 2024

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.