Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23GDCV01210, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV01210    Hearing Date: February 28, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          On November 28, 2023, plaintiff Cesar Yanez (“Plaintiff”) filed this motion for an order compelling defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff states in their notice of motion that a further response to RFP Nos. 16-22, 24-25, and 27-31 is necessary because they seek documents relevant to their Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claims arising from their purchase of a 2021 Ford F-150 on September 9, 2021. Plaintiff’s document request Nos. 15-22, 24-25, and 27-31 seek documents relating to Defendant’s warranty, repurchase policies, procedures, and practices, as well as Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the vehicle purchased by Plaintiff.

          Plaintiff’s counsel declares that on September 22, 2023, they drafted and served a meet and confer letter that requested a response by September 29, 2023. Plaintiff’s counsel further states that on October 9, 2023, defense counsel only agreed to produce a small fraction of responsive documents without providing supplemental responses.

          On February 14, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition brief asserting that Plaintiff’s motion is premature and moot. Defense counsel, Jason M. Richardson, declares that in a response dated October 9, 2023, Ford agreed to produce some of the documents requested subject to a protective order and requested that Plaintiff sign a protective order that was concurrently provided. The proposed production would adhere to a paragraph in discovery addendum to a standing order issued by Judge Ralph C. Hofer in Department D in the Glendale Courthouse. This addendum was attached to Plaintiff’s own meet and confer letter and the Court notes that the standing order in this Department 3 of the Alhambra Courthouse is substantively identical.

Mr. Richardson claims that Plaintiff’s counsel never responded to this offer for a supplemental production, which ignores that Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s letter was untimely and did not offer to produce supplemental responses. Furthermore, if Defendant is offering to supplement its production, it should also serve supplemental responses because Plaintiff is entitled to a sworn statement identifying the parameters of its production. Nevertheless, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not explain why Defendant’s offer to produce documents consistent with Judge Hofer’s discovery addendum was inadequate.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and orders Defendant to serve supplemental responses which provide the production of the following:

- Any Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual or similar policies or claim-handling procedures published by defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, from the date the subject vehicle was purchased to the present.

- Defendant’s written statements of policy and/or procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase or replacement pursuant to “Lemon Law” claims, including ones brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date the subject vehicle was purchased or leased to the date the lawsuit was filed.

- Any internal analysis, investigation, and/or communications regarding the same defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles of the same year, make and model as the subject vehicle which were sold within the State of California.

- A list of or compilation of customer complaints in defendant’s electronically stored information database that are substantially similar to the alleged defects claimed by plaintiff, in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. A substantially similar customer complaint would be the same nature of reported symptom, malfunction, dashboard indicator light, or other manifestation of a repair problem as the description listed in any work order or repair order for the subject vehicle, other than routine or scheduled maintenance items. The list provided by defendant may be in the chart or spreadsheet format, and shall include the VIN, date of repair visit, dealership or other reporting location, and text of the other customers’ reported complaint, but shall not include the other customers’ names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, or other personal identifying information.

- Technical Service Bulletins and/or Recall Notices regarding the same defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles of the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle which were sold within the State of California.

          Further responses are due within 20 days.

          Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED as Defendant was substantially justified in opposing this motion and Plaintiff was substantially justified in making it.

Plaintiff did not file a reply brief.  

Dated this 28th day of February, 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.