Case Number: 18PSCV00155 Hearing Date: February 19, 2020 Dept: J
HEARING DATE: Wednesday, February 19, 2020
NOTICE: OK1
RE: Guzman Perez v. FCA US LLC (18PSCV00155)
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Fortino Guzman Perez’s MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
Responding Party: Defendant, FCA US LLC
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Fortino Guzman Perez’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s
Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED as to Nos. 16-19 and 21 and is
otherwise DENIED as MOOT.
Background
Plaintiff Fortino Guzman Perez (“Plaintiff”) alleges that, on or about May 26, 2018, Plaintiff purchased a 2018 Ram Truck 1500, VIN #3CJR6CT6JG194153 (“subject vehicle”). Plaintiff alleges that the subject vehicle suffers from various defects and that the subject vehicle has not been repaired after a reasonable number of attempts.
On May 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants FCA US, LLC (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for:
- Violation of Subdivision (d) of Civil Code Section 1793.2
- Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civil Code Section 1793.2
- Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2
- Breach of Express Written Warranty (Civil Code § 1791.2(a); § 1794)
- Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civil Code § 1791.1; § 1794)A Final Status Conference is set for August 18, 2020. Trial is set for August 25, 2020.
Legal Standard
A party to whom a demand for inspection or production of documents has been brought must respond to each item by any of the following: (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand. (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand. (3) An objection to the particular demand. (CCP § 2031.210(a).) A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection or production of documents has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the inspection or production will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production. (CCP § 2031.220.)
A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete representations of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (CCP § 2031.310(a).) The moving party must demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith attempt” at an informal resolution of each issue presented. (CCP §§ 2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2).)
A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents must set forth specific facts showing “good cause” justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (CCP 2031.310(b)(2).) Absent a claim of privilege or attorney work product, the moving party meets its burden of showing good cause by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (See Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) If the moving party has shown good cause for the production of documents, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Id.) A responding party who objects to producing electronically stored information (“ESI”) on the basis that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of the undue burden or expense has the burden of demonstrating that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense. (CCP § 2031.310(d).)
Notice of the motion must be provided within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (CCP § 2030.310(c).)
Motions to compel further responses must always be accompanied by a separate statement containing the requests and the responses, verbatim, as well as reasons why a further response is warranted. (California Rules of Court [“CRC”] Rule 3.1345(a).) The separate statement must also be complete in itself; no extrinsic materials may be incorporated by reference. (CRC Rule 3.1345(c).)
The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make it unjust to impose sanctions. (CCP § 2031.310(h).)
Discussion
Plaintiff moves, per CCP § 2031.310, for an order striking Defendant’s objections and compelling Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 7, 16-21, 35-39, 42 and 50.
The motion was originally set for hearing on January 27, 2020; on that date, the court instructed the parties to meet and confer on any remaining issues and submit a Joint Status Report advising of same no later than 9 court days prior to the continued hearing date.”
On February 4, 2020, the parties submitted their Joint Statement. The discovery requests still in dispute are Nos. 16-19 and 21. Plaintiff has characterized these requests as “relating to FCA’s internal investigation and analysis of the Defects plaguing Plaintiff’s vehicle and establishing FCA previously knew of such Defects but nevertheless refused to repurchase the vehicle.” (Xie Decl., ¶16). These categories are addressed as follows:
Request No. 16 seeks all documents concerning any internal analysis or investigation regarding
ENGINE DEFECTS2 in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
Request No. 17 seeks all documents concerning any communications Defendant had regarding ENGINE DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
Request No. 18 seeks all documents concerning any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins, and recalls concerning the ENGINE DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
Request No. 19 seeks all documents concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to ENGINE DEFECTS.
Request No. 21 seeks all documents concerning any fixes for ENGINE DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
At the outset, the court determines that the definition of ENGINE DEFECT is impermissibly overbroad by its inclusion of the phrases “including, but not limited to” and “any other concern.” The definition shall be limited to the same conditions, defects, or nonconformities which Plaintiff submitted the subject vehicle to Defendant or Defendant’s authorized facilities for repair. Every category shall be limited to documents that are applicable to the ENGINE DEFECT, as defined by the court, in vehicles of the same year, make, model, and engine type as Plaintiffs’ vehicle, for vehicles in California. The Song-Beverly Act and its lemon law provisions limits its application to goods sold in California and has certain provisions that afford protections greater than the requirements of the federal Magnuson Moss Act. (See Civil Code §§ 1792, 1792.1; Atkinson v. Elk Corp of Texas (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 212, 231.) As the statute’s application to lemon law is for vehicles “sold in this state” such phrase is interpreted to restricting the scope to goods sold in California. (California State Electronic Ass’n v. Zeos Int’l Ltd. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1277.)
The court determines Plaintiff has otherwise established the general relevance of the information sought as the documents are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding whether Defendant knew of the defects at issue, yet failed to repurchase the subject vehicle. In Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143, the appellate court upheld a trial court’s determination that evidence of “the transmission model Ford installed in plaintiff’s truck and other vehicles” should not be excluded from trial as prejudicial in a Song–Beverly Act case brought by a single plaintiff. (Id. at 154.) Donlen thus provides a basis for permitting discovery to extend beyond Plaintiff’s specific vehicle. A defendant’s knowledge of the defect is relevant to whether Defendant willfully violated the statute. (Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 136; Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 186 [“A decision made without the use of reasonably available information germane to that decision is not a reasonable, good faith decision.”].)
Defendant claims that the requests are overly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of this matter. However, “[t]he objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required.” (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) Defendant has not provided any such evidence. At any rate, the court determines that Defendant’s concerns of overbreadth and undue burden have been sufficiently addressed via the limitations imposed above.
The motion is therefore GRANTED as to Nos. 16-19 and 21 and is otherwise DENIED as MOOT. Defendant is ordered to produce verified, code-compliant responses without objection within 20 days, subject to the limitations contained herein.
1. The motion was filed on December 5, 2019 and originally set for hearing on January 27, 2020. The court’s tentative ruling for January 27, 2020 stated, in relevant part, as follows: “[T]he court is inclined to keep the motion on calendar at this juncture to confirm Plaintiff’s receipt of Defendant’s verified supplemental responses. If it is confirmed at the time of the hearing that Plaintiff has not received verified supplemental responses from Defendant, the court at that time will continue the instant hearing in order to address the merits of the motion. In the event Plaintiff has received verified supplemental responses from Defendant on or before the time of [the] instant hearing but believes said responses are inadequate, the court will continue the hearing and request that the parties meet and confer on any remaining issues and submit a Joint Status Report advising of same no later than 9 court days prior to the continued hearing date.” On January 27, 2020, the court adopted the tentative ruling as the court’s order and continued the hearing to February 19, 2020; notice was waived. On February 4, 2020, the parties submitted a “Joint Statement Re Further Meet and Confer Re Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.”
2. The term “ENGINE DEFECT” was previously defined to “mean such defects which result in symptoms including, but not limited to: leaking oil near transmission; timing cover leak; timing cover gasket removal and replacement; oil pan gasket removal and replacement; dripping oil; oil pan gasket leak; oil filter leak; oil filter replacement; engine oil leak; and any other concern identified in the repair history for the subject 2018 RAM 1500; Vehicle Identification Number 3C6JR6CT6JG194153”].