Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23GDCV00899, Date: 2025-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV00899    Hearing Date: March 17, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

Plaintiff Adrianna A. Rubio (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”) to produce a person most knowledgeable (“PMK”) for all matters of examination requested in the deposition notice and to produce documents responsive to the notice within 10 calendar days. The scope of this ruling is limited the issues raised in Plaintiff’s separate statement; therefore, despite the broad request in Plaintiff’s moving papers, the Court only rules on the request to compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1 through 17.

          RFP No. 1: DENIED. This request seeks the “original file” for Plaintiff’s vehicle (“Subject Vehicle”). This phrase is vague and ambiguous and in her separate statement, Plaintiff only specifically requests Defendant produce its agreements with the authorized dealer that sold Plaintiff her vehicle. An agreement between a manufacturer and dealership is not responsive to a request for “the original file” for a specific vehicle. Therefore, the motion to compel is DENIED.  

RFP Nos. 2, 12-15: GRANTED IN PART. Defendant shall produce the training materials, policies, procedures, and guidelines, published by Defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities and persons in charge of evaluating consumer complaints and claims made pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act within the State of California, for the period of August 28, 2020, to present.

          RFP Nos. 3 and 4: DENIED. Plaintiff requests all communications between Defendant and McCoy Mills Ford, Inc. and Autonation Ford Tustin regarding her Subject Vehicle. Defendant agreed to comply in part and identified documents it would produce, including service and repair records, warranty and non-warranty records, claim history information. Plaintiff incorporates its discussion regarding RFP No. 1 and therefore only seems to take issue with Defendant’s failure to produce any agreements between Defendant and the authorized dealer. However, the term “COMMUNICATIONS” refers to “any transmittal, conveyance, or exchange of information”, not agreements.

          RFP No. 5: DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS or files maintained by [Defendant] regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE” does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity and is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Also, Plaintiff refers to its reason for a further response to RFP No. 2, which addresses Defendant’s lemon law, warranty, and recall policies and procedures, as well as agreements with its dealers, and is inapplicable.

          RFP Nos. 6- 8: GRANTED. Defendant must produce all handwritten notes and call logs regarding Plaintiff, the Subject Vehicle, and Plaintiff’s requests that Defendant repurchase the Subject Vehicle. If Defendant contends that any responsive documents are privileged, a privilege log must be provided.

          RFP No. 9: DENIED. Plaintiff seeks “all DOCUMENTS setting forth the deponent’s job description”, which is an incredibly broad category. Defendant agrees to produce the most recent curriculum vitae for its corporate representative, which is a sensible limitation.

          RFP No. 10; GRANTED. Defendant shall produce all documents reviewed in “determining [its] response to Plaintiff [sic] buyback requests.” If any documents are withheld on the basis of privilege, a privilege log must be provided.

          RFP No. 11: GRANTED. Defendant shall produce all documents consulted or relied upon in preparing for this deposition.

RFP No. 16: GRANTED. Defendant shall produce all Technical Service Bulletins for vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make, and model of the Subject Vehicle.

RFP NO. 17: GRANTED. Defendant shall produce all documents supporting its affirmative defenses.

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.