2017-00216699-CU-BC

Erin Weyand vs. FCA US, LLC

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Set One

Filed By: Zhang, Nancy

Plaintiffs Erin Weyand and Anthony Weyand’s Motion to Compel Further Responses and Production to Requests for Production is ruled on as follows

Plaintiffs motion seeks further responses from Defendant FCA US, LLC (“Defendant”) to requests for production, Nos. 18, 20-23, 25, 28, 31-33, 35, 58, 62, and 70.

This is a Lemon Law action involving a 2013 Dodge Dart which Plaintiffs allege had defects including electrical and airbag defects. Plaintiffs seek to compel FCA to provide full and complete responses to certain requests for production (set one). The requests relate to defendant’s internal investigations and analysis regarding the defects in plaintiffs’ vehicle and defendant’s warranty and vehicle repurchase policies. Defendant objected to the requests, contending that the request did not provide defendant with sufficient information to identify the documents. Defendant further objected that the term “electrical defects was vague, ambigous, argumentative and misleading.

The Court finds that the discover request is sufficiently specific to identify the documents being sought. The remaining objections are overruled.

Plaintiffs are entitled to information about the defects including electrical and airbag defects regarding other 2013 Dodge Dart vehicles. Indeed, in the discovery context, information is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. [citations omitted] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 [court’s emphasis].) In fact, evidence regarding other vehicles with similar defects as Plaintiffs’ could potentially be admissible at trial in a lemon law action. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154; see also Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 971.) Here, for example, the subject documents could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding defendant’s knowledge of

the defects, that defendant lacks the means to fix the defects and nevertheless refuses to repurchase Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Such information would certainly be relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim for civil penalties under Civil Code § 1794(c) given that Plaintiffs must show a willful failure by defendant in complying with its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act.

In opposition, defendant contends that it has agreed to conduct searches and supplement its responses accordingly. Plaintiffs are entitled to verified responses and such service of supplemental responses prior to the hearing does not moot the motion.

The Court finds that plaintiffs adequately met and conferred before filing this motion. In Reply plaintiff states that defendant made one production of documents on November 7, 2017 and a second production on February 13, after this motion was filed. The fact that defendant has already produced documents in response to the discovery shows that its objection based on failure to provide defendant with sufficient information to identify the documents is without merit.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in its entirety.

No later than March 19, 2018, FCA US, LLC shall serve further responses in accordance with the above and in compliance with CCP 2031.230.