2017-00214253-CU-BC

Virenda Singh vs. Ford Motor Company

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Filed By: Gi, Rodney

Plaintiff Virenda Singh’s motion to compel Defendant Ford Motor Company’s (“Ford”) further responses to requests for production is granted as set forth below.

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is denied. Discovery orders in other cases where Ford was compelled to provide further discovery responses were not relevant to the instant ruling.

In this Lemon Law action involving a 2011 Ford Edge which Plaintiff alleges had widespread defects including defects affecting the Sync system, Plaintiff seeks to compel Ford to provide full and complete responses to certain requests for production (set one). Requests nos. 34-35, 37, 39-41, 43-45, and 84-85 concern internal investigation and analysis of the Sync defects. Requests nos. 8, 60-63 and 75 relate to Ford’s warranty and repurchase policies.

Plaintiff served the requests for production on July 24, 2017. On August 28, 2017 Ford mail-served unverified responses. Ford interposed numerous objections to the requests for production, including objections based on relevance, burden and oppression, and trade secrets. Plaintiff contends that the objections were waived because the responses were untimely and unverified. However, a response containing only objections need not verified. If a response contains only an objection, the attorney must also sign the response; and if it consists entirely of objections, only the attorney’s signature is required. CCP 2030.250(a)(c) ; see Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 339, 344 (responses consisting only of objections need not be verified.) The responses were timely because they were mail served 35 days from the date they were served by mail, which is timely pursuant to CCP 1013(a) [“Service is complete at the time of deposit] Because service of the requests was by mail. Defendant had until 35 days from the date of mailing to mail serve its responses.

Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter on October 17, 2017. Ford agreed to produce certain documents subject to its objections and a protective order. Ford’s Motion for Protective Order is currently set to be heard on February 8, 2018.

Plaintiff is entitled to information about SYNC defects regarding other identical (same year, make, model, sold in California) vehicles. 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.) In fact, evidence regarding other vehicles with similar defects as Plaintiff’s 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 Ford’s knowledge of the Sync defects, that Ford lacks the means to fix the defects and nevertheless refuses to repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle. Such information would be relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for civil penalties under Civil Code § 1794(c) given that Plaintiff must show a willful failure by Ford in complying with its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act.

In opposition, Ford contends that it has: already produced, agreed to produce after entry of a protective order, or appropriately objected to, plaintiff’s requests. However, Ford had not addressed its objections in the opposition. The responding party has the obligation to justify its objections. Fairmont Ins. Co. v Sup. Ct. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255. The objections are therefore overruled.

As to Requests 84 and 85, plaintiffs seek documents produced by Ford in the MyFord Touch class action as well as all deposition transcripts and exhibits of any Ford witnesses who testified about the Sync defects, whether or not related to the same make, model and year of plaintiff’s vehicle. Ford contends only the documents concerning plaintiff’s vehicle type and the symptoms for which he sought repair are relevant. In Reply, plaintiff agrees to limit the scope of documents to the MFT System installed in the 2011 Ford Edge vehicles and the repair procedures applied to those vehicles (not just plaintiff’s vehicle.) The deposition transcripts are not limited to the 2011 Ford Edge vehicle but are to include SYNC defect issues affecting other vehicles.

Ford argues that further responses should not be compelled because it has agreed to search for and produce documents related to the issues that Plaintiffs’ vehicle actually experienced according to the repair records and that documents related to defects for which the vehicle was not presented for repair are not relevant. Ford presents no evidence whatsoever to support its assertions that Plaintiffs vehicle did not experience these issues and instead cites to the repair records attached to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration and attempts to argue that these show that the vehicle did not experience these issues. The Court will not limit the definition of SYNC Defects to the issues Ford believes Plaintiffs experienced.

Ford’s burdensome and oppression objections are overruled. Ford failed to substantiate any objection based on undue burden. Indeed, undue burden objections must be accompanied by a specific factual showing setting forth the amount of work necessary to respond to the subject discovery. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418.) Plaintiff contends Ford has already gathered documents in the MyFord Touch Class Action. Ford does not provide any evidence of what documents it collected in the class action and fails entirely to provide evidence of the amount of work it might take to provide further responses to the instant discovery. Indeed, the fact that it has already gathered documents suggests that any burden is not undue. Ford’s opposition is devoid of any factual showing whatsoever and any objection based on undue burden is therefore overruled.

The objections based on confidentiality/trade secret are overruled as not supported by any evidence.

Ford’s Motion for Protective order is currently set for February 8, 2018.

Ford is ordered to serve further responses in accordance with the above (as limited in Nos. 84 and 85) within 15 days of the final ruling on the motion for protective order, Ford shall serve further responses in accordance with the above. The Court urges the parties to meet and confer to reach stipulated protective order similar to that entered in the Patterson case (same defect, same discovery, same attorneys on each side), case No 2016-00203097 on December 20, 2017 which would render moot the motion for protective order.