Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24GDCV00235, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24GDCV00235    Hearing Date: December 9, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          This action arises from the purchase of a 2022 Ford F-150 (“Subject Vehicle”) by Plaintiffs German Perez Garcia and Andrea Martinez Negrete (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) on April 11, 2022. Plaintiffs allege that the Subject Vehicle does not conform to the warranty issued by its manufacturer, Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”) and served a deposition notice for Defendant’s “person most knowledgeable”/“person most qualified”. The notice at issue in this motion identifies five matters of examination (referred to as “Categories”) and eight requests for production (“RFPs”). The Court rules on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel as follows:

          Category No. 1: GRANTED in part, but only with respect to policies, procedures, and guidelines in effect from April 11, 2022, to the date of suit (February 6, 2024). 

          Category Nos. 2-5: DENIED. There is no evidence, such as a declaration, that either plaintiff called Defendant’s “1-800 customer assistance number.” Therefore, the recording policies, tasks or duties of the company handling Defendant’s “1-800 customer assistance service number” and Defendant’s relationship with said company are not relevant.

          RFP Nos. 1, 5: DENIED. With respect to RFP 1, the phrase “entire original file” is vague and ambiguous. For both RFP Nos. 1 and 5, Plaintiffs do not describe what other documents they are seeking besides those which have already been produced and identified by Defendant.

          RFP No. 2: GRANTED in part. Defendant’s privilege and work product objections are sustained, and Defendant must provide a privilege log. Defendant must produce only its policies and procedures for its authorized repair facilities pertaining to consumer complaints about defective vehicles that were in effect from April 11, 2022, to the date of suit (February 6, 2024).

          RFP Nos. 3-4: GRANTED, in part. Defendant must produce its non-privileged communications with Galpin Ford Service and Sunrise Ford regarding the Subject Vehicle from April 11, 2022, to the date of suit. Defendant’s privilege/work product objections are SUSTAINED; Defendant is to provide a privilege log.

          RFP No. 6: GRANTED in part. The phrase “regarding Plaintiffs” are vague and ambiguous and make this RFP overly broad. Also, there is no evidence that Plaintiffs made any calls to Defendant. However, the Court will compel the production of call logs insofar as they are records made of emails between Defendant and Plaintiffs. Production of records pertaining to phone calls made between Defendant and Plaintiffs would be compelled, but as stated above, Plaintiffs provide no evidence that any phone calls to Defendant were made.

          RFP No. 7: GRANTED in part. Defendant’s privilege and work product objections are SUSTAINED; Defendant must provide a privilege log.

          RFP No. 8: GRANTED in part. Defendant must produce the training materials provided to Defendant’s employees regarding the handling of consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase that were in effect for the period of time during which Plaintiffs’ Subject Vehicle was eligible for repurchase. Defendant’s privilege and work product objections are SUSTAINED; Defendant must provide a privilege log.

          Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is GRANTED in part as outlined above. No sanctions shall be issued.

Dated this 9th day of December, 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.