Judge Yolanda Orozco, Case 22STCV01555 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 22STCV01555, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01555 Hearing Date: April 28, 2023 Dept: 31

PROCEEDINGS:¿ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RPD

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Courtney Lee

RESP. PARTY: Defendant FCA

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RPD

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s request for further responses to Request for Production of Documents (RPD) Nos. 9, 24, 25, 26, and 38-45 is DENIED.

Request for further responses as to RPD Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 16-17, 20, 23-26, 46, 49-53, and 56 to 57 is GRANTED, including request Nos 10, 11, 20, and 33 which have been modified to be more limited in scope, as follows:

RPD No. 10

“All versions of the Warranty Policies and Procedures Manual published by YOU and provided to YOUR authorized repair facilities regarding vehicles of the same make and model as the subject vehicle within the state of California effective from Plaintiff’s date of purchase of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to the present date.”

RPD No. 11

“A copy of the Workshop Manual specifying diagnosis and repair procedures for the subject vehicle.”

RPD No. 20

“All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern the handling of repeat complaints by customers regarding vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE and regarding the same alleged defects in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

RPD No. 33

“All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern any warranty extension that has been issued or is in the process of being issued for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

The Defendant is also ordered to produce the responses without redactions or produce a privilege log.

Background

On January 13, 2022, Plaintiff Courtney Lee filed a Complaint against Defendant FCA and Does 1 to 20 for:

1) Breach of Express Warranty under the Song-Beverly Act;

2) Breach of Implied Warranty under the Song-Beverly Act; and

3) Breach of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended motion to Compel Defendant FCA to Produce Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (RPD), Set One. Plaintiff also filed a Separate Statement.

Defendant filed an opposition on February 27, 2023.

Defendant filed a reply on March 03, 2023.

On March 09, 2023, the Court CONTINUED the hearing.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 subdivision (a), parties may move for a further response to request for production where an answer to the requests was evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merits or too general.

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310 subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310 subd. (b).)

Finally, California Rules of Court rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that on or about January 15, 2021, Plaintiff purchased a new 2021 Chrysler Pacifica (“vehicle” or “SUBJECT VEHICLE”). (Compl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff asserts that the Vehicle was delivered with serious defects and non-conformities that impaired the utility and performance of the vehicle including but not limited to “to the engine and related systems, check engine light illuminated, vehicle not starting, brake booster module, lost communication with brake booster module, ABS module, battery pack control module, hybrid/ev [sic] battery contactor stuck closed, and others.” (Compl. ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff moves for further Request for Production of Documents (RPDs) to Nos. 3, 5,7-12, 16, 17, 20, 23-26, 33, 37-57 based on Defendant’s failure to provide further responses despite assurances to the contrary at the parties IDC held on July 26, 2022. No request for sanctions is made.

Plaintiff’s IDC statement stated that Plaintiff sought further response related to Plaintiff’s vehicle, its warranty, repair manual, and repair procedures (RPDs Nos. 3, 5, 7, and 33.) Further responses related to RPDs Nos. 16-17, 20, 28-29, 34, 37-39, and 40 to 57 related to Defendant’s knowledge, internal investigations, analysis, and publications of defects plaguing the subject vehicle. Further responses to RPDs Nos. 10-12, and 24-26 related to Defendant’s warranty and vehicle repurchase policies, procedures, and practices.

At the IDC, Defendant “largely agreed to supply the requested information and documents.” (Min. Or. 07/26/22.) “Defendant will produce its policies regarding vehicle repairs and the repurchase of vehicles, TSB’s that relate to the defects alleged in the Complaint and information about customer complaints as outlined in paragraph 3 of Attachment “A” to the Court’s Joint CMC Statement Addendum.” (Id.)

Plaintiff asserts that on September 26, 2022, Defendant produced some documents with redactions and no privilege log, and that the documents produced did not cover all items in dispute which were ordered by the Court and promised by Defendant. (Bohloul Decl. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff sent Defendant a detailed letter on November 04, 2022, outlining why Defendant’s responses were deficient. (Id. ¶ 22, Ex. N.) Plaintiff asserts that to date, Defendant has failed to respond.

Defendant asserts that on April 27, 2022, it sent Plaintiff a letter asking Plaintiff to identify search terms for the specific issues that Plaintiff experienced and presented to an authorized repair facility so that Defendant could supplement its responses. (Gregg Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. E.) The Court notes that Defendant’s request that Plaintiff provide search terms was not raised by Defendant in its IDC Statement, at the IDC, or in any subsequent meet and confer letters sent to Plaintiff.

Defendant asserts that pursuant to the July 28, 2022 IDC, on September 26, 2022 it complied with this Court’s ruling and served supplemental responses. (Greg Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. E.) According to Defendant, Plaintiff’s motion is frivolous and should be denied. As stated above, Plaintiff disagrees and asserts that further responses are necessary.

RPD Nos. 3, 5, 7, and 33

Plaintiff’s RPD Nos. 3, 5, 7, and 33 relate to the vehicle’s warranty, repair manual, and repair procedures.

RPD No. 3

“All promotional brochures, flyers, posters, folders, and media advertisements regarding, pertaining, or relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE for the period of one year prior to Plaintiff’s acquisition of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

RPD No. 5

“All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern Plaintiff’s acquisition of the SUBJECT VEHICLE (this Request shall include the sales/lease file commonly referred to as the deal jacket)”

RPD No. 7

“All repair orders pertaining to the SUBJECT VEHICLE from the date of manufacture to the present date [this request includes any and all versions of each repair order (e.g. warranty copy, accounting copy, customer copy, etc.) and any and all DOCUMENTS and printouts related to each repair order as maintained by YOUR authorized repair facility(ies) in the ordinary course of business].”

RPD No. 33

“All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern any warranty extension that has been issued or is in the process of being issued for vehicles that are the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

The Court agrees that RPD No. 33 is overbroad in that it seeks information on warranty extensions as to other vehicles, not just the subject vehicle. Plaintiff also fails to explain how information related to warranty extensions of other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff also fails to show how warranty information on other vehicles will aid Plaintiff in showing that Defendant was aware of defects in the subject vehicle. Accordingly, the Court limits RPD No. 33 in scope as follows:

RPD No. 33

“All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern any warranty extension that has been issued or is in the process of being issued for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

As to the RPD Nos. 3, 5, and 7, the Court finds that Plaintiff has articulated good cause for the information sought. The Court agrees that any statement made by Defendant about the capabilities and qualities of the subject vehicle is relevant as requested in RPD No. 3. Furthermore, if a party asserts a “burdensome” objection, that party bears the burden of “showing the quantum of work required” to respond to discovery and articulate that burden that is being imposed on that party. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 407, 417-418.)

Here, Defendant made boilerplate objections based on the request being “overly broad” or “burdensome” or “ambiguous” without articulating facts as to why the request was overly broad, burdensome, or vague. Moreover, to the extent Defendant agreed to comply with the request, Defendant was required to identify the specific request number to which the document responds to. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280 subd. (a).)

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for further responses to RPDs Nos. 3, 5, 7, and 33 (which has been modified in scope) is GRANTED.

RPD Nos. 8-9, 10-12, 16-17, 20, 23-26

Plaintiff’s RPD Nos. 8-9, 10-12, 16-17, 20, 23-26 relate to the vehicle inspections and investigations as well as vehicle repurchase policies, procedures, and practices.

RPD No. 8

“All documents which refer, relate to or concern any examination or inspection of the

SUBJECT VEHICLE from the date of manufacture to the present date.”

RPD No. 9

“The SUBJECT VEHICLE’s warranty repair and claims history from the date of manufacture to the present date [this request includes all computer records reflecting all monetary amounts requested for reimbursement by YOUR authorized repair facilities and accepted or rejected by YOU].”

RPD No. 10

“All versions of the Warranty Policies and Procedures Manual published by YOU and provided to YOUR authorized repair facilities within the state of California effective from Plaintiff’s date of purchase of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to the present date.”

RPD No. 11

“A copy of the Workshop Manual specifying diagnosis and repair procedures for vehicles that are the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

RPD No. 12

“All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern diagnosis and/or repair procedures for any of the complaints reported by Plaintiff to YOUR authorized repair facilities regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE at any time (this Request includes, but is not limited to, all DOCUMENTS which describe, outline, detail, or otherwise specify diagnostic and repair procedures used by Defendant’s technicians such as technical service bulletins, recall notices, special service messages, campaign bulletins, diagnostic flow charts, diagnostic trouble code or fault code diagnosis keys, power point presentations, internal investigation reports, field reports, causal factor analyses, failed component analyses, and/or any other DOCUMENT which refers, relates to or concerns the repairs performed by Defendant’s technicians).”

RPD No. 16

“All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern any technical service bulletin issued, or in the process of being issued for vehicles that are the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE (this Request includes, but is not limited to, all documents giving rise to the issuance of the technical service bulletins and the technical service bulletins themselves).”

RPD No. 17

“All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern any recalls issued, or in the process of being issued for vehicles that are the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE (this Request includes, but is not limited to, all documents giving rise to the issuance of the recalls and the recalls themselves).”

RPD No. 20

“All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern the handling of repeat complaints by customers regarding their vehicles.”

RPD No. 23

“All DOCUMENTS from the date of Plaintiff’s acquisition of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to the present date that YOU use to evaluate consumer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.”

RPD No. 24

“All DOCUMENTS from the date of Plaintiffs acquisition of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to the present date which evidence, describe, refer or relate to procedures by YOU for the handling of complaints by consumers regarding vehicles manufactured or distributed by YOU.”

RPD No. 25

All DOCUMENTS from the date of Plaintiff's acquisition of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to the present date which evidence, describe, refer or relate to YOUR rules, policies, or procedures concerning the issuance of refunds to buyers or providing replacement vehicles to buyers or lessees pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

RPD No. 26

“All DOCUMENTS from the date of Plaintiffs acquisition of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to the present date which evidence, describe, refer or relate to policies, procedures, and/or instructions that YOUR employees and agents should follow when evaluating a customer request for a refund of the price paid for a vehicle or replacement of a new motor vehicle manufactured or distributed by YOU.”

The request for a further response to RPD No. 9 is DENIED as Defendant has already agreed to “comply in full and produce a copy of the warranty claim records for the Subject Vehicle, and a copy of vehicle repair records obtained from any authorized repair facility concerning service to the Subject Vehicle.” (Separate Statement RPD No. 9.) Plaintiff fails to show why the request for “all computer records reflecting all monetary amounts requested for reimbursement” is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims or aid in the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, no further response is warranted.

The Court agrees that further responses to RPDs No. 8, 10-12, 16-17, 20, 23-26 are warranted and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request, but limits the scope of RPD Nos 10, 11, and 20 as follows:

RPD No. 10

RPD No. 11

“A copy of the Workshop Manual specifying diagnosis and repair procedures for the subject vehicle.”

RPD No. 20

Contrary to Defendant’s assertions that its’ handling of repeated complaints is irrelevant, the Court finds the request is relevant and in conformity with Paragraph 4 of Attachment “A” to the Joint CMC Statement Addendum, permitting discovery into Defendant’s policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchases.

Plaintiff is permitted to pursue penalties for willful violations of the Song-Beverly Act. The finding of a willful violation is a question of fact for the jury and must be supported by substantial evidence. (See Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 117.) In Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, evidence of willful violations was found when the defendant manufacturer had a policy, “which requires a part be replaced or adjusted before Isuzu deems it a repair attempt but excludes from repair attempts any visit during which a mechanic searches for but is unable to locate the source of the problem [such that the policy] is unreasonable and not a good faith effort to honor its statutory obligations to repurchase defective cars.” (Id. at 1105.) “Finally, there was evidence that Isuzu adopted internal policies that erected hidden obstacles to the ability of an unwary consumer to obtain redress under the Act.” (Id.) This included informing consumers that if they wished to preserve their rights under state “Lemon Laws”, the consumer could “notify Isuzu if the dealer has been unable to repair problems but specifies the notice may be either in writing or by calling a toll-free number listed in the warranty book. However, Isuzu's internal policy memorandum instructs Isuzu personnel that they are to begin an investigation of a reported problem only after receiving written notification from the consumer.” (Id. at fn. 13.)

The Court agrees that Plaintiff is entitled to discovery of how Defendant handled consumer complaints. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for further responses to RPD No. 20 but modified above in scope.

The Court DENIES RPD No. 24 as it is duplicative of RPD No. 20.

As to RPD Nos. 25 and 26, Defendant represents that no further responses are necessary because it has already produced all responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant agreed on April 27, 2022, to provide but has failed to comply.

The Court finds that RPD Nos. 25 and 26 are overbroad and beyond the scope of Paragraph 4 of Attachment “A” to Joint CMC Statement which states:

“All documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for the period from date of purchase to present.”

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for further responses to RPD Nos. 25 and 26.

As to the remaining RPDs, the Court agrees that Plaintiff has articulated good cause for the information sought and that it is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. The Court also agrees that Defendant’s objections are without merit because Defendant failed to carry its burden of justifying its objection, including those based on privilege. (See Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221.) Defendant’s responses also do not comply Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210. “[U]pon receipt of a request for production of documents, a party must serve a written response stating that the party will comply, that it lacks the ability to comply, or that it objects to compliance.” (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court of Orange County (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1033.) If Defendant was unable to comply, section 2031.230 requires that Defendant states that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to locate the item demanded and the reason Defendant is unable to comply e.g., the document never existed; has been lost or stolen; has been destroyed; or is not in the possession, custody or control of the responding party, in which case, the response must state the name and address of anyone believed to have the document. (See also Manlin v. Milner (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 1004, 1023 [finding monetary sanctions appropriate against LLC member for abuse of discovery process and for engaging in gamesmanship by providing incomplete and non-compliant responses].)

RPD Nos. 37 to 57

Plaintiff’s RPDs Nos. 37 to 57 relate to Defendant’s knowledge, internal investigations, analysis, and publication of defects plaguing the subject vehicle.

RPD No. 37

“Any parts or components of the SUBJECT VEHICLE that were retained by YOUR authorized repair facilities.”

RPD No. 38

“All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, relate or refer to the numbers of owners and lessees of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE who have complained of any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU.”

RPD No. 39

“All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails from January 1, 2014 to the present date, which refer, relate to or concern all same year, make and model vehicles as the SUBJECT VEHICLE which have been repurchased or replaced by YOU.”

RPD No. 40

“A current copy of RRT 21-062 and any past versions, updated versions and DOCUMENTS discussing any contemplated future updates.”

RPD No. 41

“All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to, electronic mails, internal investigations, electronically stored information, internal reports, PowerPoint slideshows and internal analyses which contributed to the issuance of RRT 21-062, any past versions and its revisions.”

RPD No. 42

“A current copy of RRT 21-063 and any past versions, updated versions and DOCUMENTS discussing any contemplated future updates.”

RPD No. 43

“All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to, electronic mails, internal investigations, electronically stored information, internal reports, PowerPoint slideshows and internal analyses which contributed to the issuance RRT 21-063, any past versions and its revisions.”

RPD No. 44

“A current copy of Bulletin 08-092-21, and any past versions, updated versions and

DOCUMENTS discussing any contemplated future updates.”

RPD No. 45

“All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to, electronic mails, internal investigations, electronically stored information, internal reports, PowerPoint slideshows and internal analyses which contributed to the issuance of Bulletin 08-092-21, any past versions and its revisions.”

RPD No. 46

“All DOCUMENTS from YOUR technical hotline that refer, relate to or concern communications between YOU and YOUR authorized repair facilities regarding diagnosis and/or repairs involving the SUBJECT VEHICLE at any time.”

RPD No. 47

“All DOCUMENTS from YOUR technical hotline that refer, relate to or concern

communications between YOU and YOUR authorized repair facilities regarding diagnosis and/or repairs of the battery in vehicles that are the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

RPD No. 48

“All DOCUMENTS from YOUR technical hotline that refer, relate to or concern

communications between YOU and YOUR authorized repair facilities regarding diagnosis and/or repairs of check engine light illumination in vehicles that are the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

RPD No. 49

RPD No. 50

“All DOCUMENTS from YOUR technical hotline that refer, relate to or concern

communications between YOU and YOUR authorized repair facilities regarding diagnosis and/or repairs of the ABS module in vehicles that are the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

RPD No. 51

RPD No. 52

“All DOCUMENTS evidencing, relating, or referring to the failure rates of the battery in vehicles that are the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

RPD No. 53

“All DOCUMENTS evidencing, relating, or referring to the failure rates of the battery pack control module in vehicles that are the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

RPD No. 54

All DOCUMENTS evidencing, relating, or referring to complaints of the vehicle not starting by owners and lessees of vehicles that are the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

RPD No. 55

“All DOCUMENTS evidencing, relating, or referring to complaints of check engine light

coming on by owners and lessees of vehicles that are the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

RPD No. 56

“All DOCUMENTS evidencing, relating, or referring to the number of warranty claims

involving the battery pack control module in vehicles that are the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

RPD No. 57

“All DOCUMENTS evidencing, relating, or referring to the number of warranty claims for the battery in vehicles that are the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

The Court agrees that RPD Nos. 38, 39, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45 are overbroad and too expansive beyond what is covered Attachment “A” to the Court’s Joint CMC Statement Addendum. For example, RPD Nos. 48 and 55 are overly broad because they relate to a nonspecific defect of “check engine light.” The Court is empowered to limit the frequency or extent of discovery when “[t]he likely burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit, taking into account the amount in controversy, the resources of the parties, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (g)(4) [regarding electronically stored information].) This is true even when the information is “reasonably accessible.” (Id.)

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for further responses as to RPD Nos. 38-45 and GRANTS the request as to RPD Nos. 46, 49-53, and 56 to 57.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s request for further responses to Request for Production of Documents (RPD) Nos. 9, 24, 25, 26, and 38-45 is DENIED.

Request for further responses as to RPD Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 16-17, 20, 23-26, 46, 49-53, and 56 to 57 is GRANTED, including request Nos 10, 11, 20, and 33 which have been modified as follows:

RPD No. 10

RPD No. 11

“A copy of the Workshop Manual specifying diagnosis and repair procedures for the subject vehicle.”

RPD No. 20

RPD No. 33

“All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern any warranty extension that has been issued or is in the process of being issued for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

The Defendant is also ordered to produce the responses without redactions or produce a privilege log.

Moving party to give notice.