Judge William Y. Wood, Case Number: 37-2023-00016604-CU-BC-NC, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William Y. Wood, Case: 37-2023-00016604-CU-BC-NC, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 30, 2024

05/31/2024 01:30:00 PM N-29 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:William Y Wood

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00016604-CU-BC-NC ALSPAUGH VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 03/26/2024

Plaintiff's motion to compel further discovery (ROA # 52) is granted in part and denied in part.

On April 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. for violation of the Song-Beverly Act (breach of express warranty) and fraudulent inducement (concealment). Complaint (ROA # 1). This is a Song-Beverly 'lemon law' case involving a new 2018 Honda ODYSSEY purchased by Plaintiff in June 2018. Plaintiff alleges defects in the '9-speed transmission.' Id. at �� 8 and 11-12.

On November 14, 2023, Plaintiff propounded discovery on the Defendant including a request for production of documents. Tran Decl. (ROA # 56), � 5. On December 19, 2023, Defendant served discovery responses. Id. at � 6.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to six document demand requests (Nos. 30-33, 43 and 45).

ROA # 52. Plaintiff seeks sanctions in connection with the motion in the amount of $2,125. Id. Defendant opposes the motion and seeks sanctions in the amount of $3,120. ROA # 72.

A civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541. '[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' Code Civ. Proc. � 2017.010. 'Among the myriad purposes of the civil discovery statutes is to safeguard against surprise and gamesmanship, and to prevent delay.' Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 306. Further, 'if an error is made in ruling on a discovery motion, it is better that it be made in favor of granting discovery of the nondiscoverable rather than denying discovery of information vital to preparation or presentation of the party's case or to efficacious settlement of the dispute.' Norton v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1750, 1761.

CCP � 2031.310 authorizes a party to move to compel a further response to an inspection demand when: (1) the responding party's response is incomplete, (2) a claim that the responding party cannot comply is defective, or (3) an objection is defective. 'A central purpose of the Discovery Act was to keep the trial courts out of the business of refereeing day-to-day discovery by requiring parties to conduct discovery and resolve disputes with minimal judicial involvement.' Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 253-54.

Plaintiff's requests numbers 30-33 and 43 seek 'other vehicle' evidence from the Defendant.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3110572 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ALSPAUGH VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00016604-CU-BC-NC Documents regarding other vehicles that are the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle are relevant to plaintiffs' claim for civil penalties. See Civ. Code � 1794(c); see also Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967.

Defendant has asserted a trade secret objection as to each of the requests; however, Defendant has failed to show that the specific information sought constitutes protectible trade secrets. See Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1393; see also San Diego Professional Ass'n v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 194, 199 ['The burden of establishing that a particular matter is privileged is on the party asserting the privilege.'].

Defendant shall serve supplemental discovery responses to request numbers 30-33 and 43. The verified supplemental responses shall state, in plain and simple language: (1) whether Defendant has any documents responsive to the request; (2) whether Defendant has or will produce all such documents; and (3) whether Defendant is withholding from production any responsive documents. The supplemental verified responses shall be served by June 14, 2024. If any responsive documents are being withheld by Defendant, Defendant shall prepare and serve a log of the withheld documents.

Plaintiff's request number 45 seeks documents that were produced in connection with the class action lawsuit of Browning v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., United States District Court Northern District of California, Case No. 5:20-cv-05417, (N.D. Cal.), relating to the 9-Speed Transmissions defect alleged in Plaintiff's vehicle, which Plaintiff argues are clearly relevant to Defendant's knowledge of ongoing and uncurable defects and nonconformities in Plaintiff's Vehicle. This practice is often referred to by the Federal courts as 'cloned discovery' or 'piggyback requests' (i.e., requesting discovery produced in another case to help bolster claims in the current case). 'Cloned discovery' or 'piggyback requests' are generally not permitted. See Ludlow v. Flowers Foods, Inc. (S.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2019, No.

18-CV01190-JLS-JLB) 2019 WL 6252926.

Thus, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion to compel a further response to request number 45.

Both parties' requests for monetary sanctions are denied. The imposition of monetary sanctions in this instance would be unjust considering the totality of circumstances.

This minute order constitutes the Court's order. No party is required to submit a proposed order after hearing.

This is the tentative ruling for an appearance (in person or remote) hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, May 31, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court as of May 31, 2024. If the parties are satisfied with the Court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3110572