2013-00148920-CU-BC

Thomas F. Weimer vs. Ford Motor Company

Nature of Proceeding:    Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Filed By:   Ortiz, Daisy

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses is granted/denied as follows:

Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice is granted. Ford’s objections are overruled.

Plaintiff brings this action for violation of the Lemon Laws arising out of plaintiffs’
purchase of a Ford F-350 “Super Duty” Truck. Plaintiff alleges that Ford knew of the
engine defects for years but concealed them. Plaintiff alleges that Ford, instead of
abiding by the standards of the lemon law, set its own standards in determining when
and whether it would issue buy backs, requiring customers to come in many times
before a buy back would be offered.  Plaintiffs propounded requests that sought
information such as the vehicle’s repair history, defendant’s contentions regarding the
various nonconformities, and defendant’s policies and procedures for handling
customer warranty claims and repurchase requests. Ford’s responses to many of the
requests stated that it would comply “in part” but then directed plaintiff to an attached
exhibit of Bates numbers of documents.  Ford also raised objections based on attorney
client privilege and work product.

Defendant’s response to this request is not code compliant. A document response
must consist of (1) an agreement to comply, stating whether the productions or
inspection will be allowed “in whole or in part,” and that all documents or things in the
possession, custody or control of the respondent, as to which no objection is made,
will be included, by the date set for inspection (unless informally extended in writing, or
the designated timing is subject to objection); (2) a representation of inability to
comply, with a specification of any person believed or known to have possession of
documents; or (3) objections and specifications of withheld documents. (Civ Proc, §§
2031.210, subd. (a), 2031.220, 2031.270, 2031.280, subd. (b); Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro.
Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2012)§§ 8:1469- 8:1474.)
The Court rejects Ford’s argument that plaintiffs are being overly technical in their
dissatisfaction with the responses.  The statement that it will comply “in part” without
explaining why it is not complying completely raises the issue that not all relevant
documents are being produced.

The motion is granted as to Nos. 9, 11, 18, 20, 52, 54, 57, 81, and 82.

The motion is denied as to 103, 110, and 111.   No. 103 is over broad and Nos. 110
and 111 seek information that Ford does not have.

Defendants shall provide a privilege log with the further responses regarding
documents claimed to be protected by the attorney client privilege/work product
doctrine.  §2031.240 now provides that, in response to an objection on a claim of
privilege or attorney work product, the party withholding documents must provide
sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim,
including if necessary, a privilege log.

Verified further responses are to be served on or before July 15, 2014.

Sanctions are denied as each side partially prevailed.

The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.