Case Number: 19LBCV00395 Hearing Date: February 25, 2020 Dept: S27

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Luis Torres’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to his Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, 7, 16-21, 35-39, 42, 50. 59-64, and 67 is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Luis Torres (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Defendant”) on June 20, 2019, alleging violations of statutory obligations under the Song-Beverly Act.

DISCUSSION

Overview of Relevant Law

A party may move for an order compelling further response to a request for production of documents if the demanding party deems that responses are incomplete, evasive, or contains objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) A motion to compel further responses to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) “To establish ‘good cause,’ the burden is on the moving party to show both: (1) relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and (2) specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial.) [Citations.] The fact that there is no alternative source for the information sought is an important factor in establishing ‘good cause’ for inspection. But it is not essential in every case.” (Edmon & Karnow, Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 8:1495.6.)

Analysis

Plaintiff propounded his Requests for Production, Set One, (RFP) on Defendant on October 8, 2019. (Fennell Decl. ¶ 16, Exh. 5.) After receiving unverified responses on November 12, 2019, Plaintiff received a set of verified responses to the RFP on December 12, 2019. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18, Exhs. 6-7.) On January 7, 2020, Defendant served a set of supplemental responses to the RFP. (Id. ¶ 19, Exh. 8.)

Counsel for Plaintiff declares that on October 8, 2019, he sent an initial meet-and-confer letter to Defense counsel regarding “discovery of electronically stored information, search terms, and a litigation hold,” but received no response. (Id. ¶ 20, 21.) Counsel sent another meet-and-confer letter on November 18, 2019, discussing the objections raised in Defendant’s first set of responses. (Id. ¶ 22.) On December 9, 2019, Defendant responded by stating that it would stand by its objections. (Id. ¶ 24, Exh. 12.) The parties engaged in further communication regarding the sufficiency of the responses, but as of the day of this declaration had not come to an agreement. (Id. ¶¶ 25-29.)

Thus, the Court determines that Plaintiff has complied with his meet-and-confer requirements pursuant to CCP § 2031.310(b)(2).

Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling Defendant to produce responses to its RFP, Set One, Nos. 7, 16-21, 35-39, 42, 50. 59-64, and 67.

Plaintiff argues that good cause exists to compel the discovery because the documents sought are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims under the Song-Beverly Act. This action arises from Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2016 Honda Pilot Vehicle, and allegations that Defendant willfully violated “the Song-Beverly Act by refusing to repurchase the subject vehicle and breached the implied warranty of merchantability when it sold to Plaintiff a vehicle that contains known defects at the time of sale.” (Motion 1:20-23.) Plaintiff categorizes the RFP sought into two broad categories:

(1) those relating to Honda’s internal investigation and analysis of the Defects plaguing Plaintiff’s vehicle and establishing that Defendant previously knew of such Defects but nevertheless refused to repurchase the vehicle (i.e., Nos. 16-21, 59-64); (2) those relating to Defendant’s warranty and vehicle repurchase policies, procedures, and practices (i.e., Nos. 7, 35-39, 42, 50, 67).

(Id. 1:11-15.)

Here, good cause is shown. The information sought by the stated RFP will be relevant to prove whether Defendant willfully failed to comply with the Act or frustrated Plaintiffs’ attempts to obtain a repurchase of the vehicle. It is relevant to proving a prima facie case under the Song-Beverly Act, because the information sought by the deposition will likely lead to admissible evidence regarding when the vehicle was subject to a reasonable number of repairs and to determining the extent that the vehicle was a discernable lemon. The discovery will also show whether Defendant has a pattern of acting in good faith compliance with the Act, or if Defendant tends to avoid repurchasing defective vehicles.

In opposition, Defendant contends that is has produced the documents relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, and that what “Plaintiff demands in his motion is irrelevant evidence regarding other vehicles, other consumers, and other vehicle concerns, all completely unrelated to Plaintiff s claims.” (Opp. 12:1-17.) Indeed, although the RFP seek information pertaining to other vehicles, the RFP that pertain to other vehicles pertain to “vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” (Separate Statement e.g. RFP 16.) As mentioned above, such documents are argued to be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims of good (or bad) faith compliance with Defendant’s duties under the Song-Beverly Act.

As to this effect, Defendant opposes the motion on the grounds that the discovery at issue has no bearing on Plaintiff’s claims for a civil penalty. Defendant cites to Ibrahim v. Ford Motor Co., where the court held that “[t]he instructions should have told the jury that a civil penalty could be awarded to plaintiff if the jury determined that Ford knew of its obligations but intentionally declined to fulfill them. Instead, the jury’s attention was confused with language which virtually compelled a wholly extraneous moral assessment of Ford’s conduct.” ((1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 878, 894.) However, this authority does not negate the argument that Defendant’s knowledge of a widespread defect in the 2016 Honda Pilot line of vehicles is relevant to its knowledge of its duties under the Song-Beverly Act pertaining to Plaintiff’s specific vehicle.

Additionally, Defendant contends that the discovery propounded by Plaintiff is disproportionate to the value of the case. However, Defendant’s opposition provides no argument as to why or how production of the documents sought would be burdensome. Rather, Defendant argues in conclusory fashion that “Plaintiff seeks to compel production of ESI regarding every other 2016 Honda Pilot vehicle across the country. Plaintiff’s attempt to compel AHM to produce documents concerning every 2016 Honda Pilot vehicle under the guise of necessity in a Lemon Law case cannot withstand even cursory scrutiny.” (Opp. SS 24:25-25:1.) Without argument or evidence as to why production of the information is excessively burdensome, Defendant’s argument is unavailing.

Finally, Defendant contends that its previously produced responses to RFP 7, 18, 21, and 64 are complete.

RFP 7 requests that Defendant produce “[t]he Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by YOU and provided to YOUR authorized repair facility(s), within the state of California, from 2014 to the present. This request will be understood to include production of any and all versions of such manual as distributed to YOUR dealerships during the relevant time frame].”

Defendant responded in relevant part to RFP 7 as “[s]ubject to and without waiving these objections, AHM will produce a copy of the 2016 Honda Pilot Warranty Booklet and the 2016 Honda Consumer Information Booklet.” However, the remainder of the response is replete with boilerplate and unsubstantiated objections. The Supplemental Response provides that subject to all objections “AHM will produce Sections 3 and 5 of the Service Operations Manual directed to warranty services, which contain information that is confidential, commercially sensitive, and proprietary or trade secret, pursuant to the entry of an appropriate protective order.” (Opp. SS 7.)

Not only does this response maintain various objections which Defendant fails to factually substantiate, it not clear to this Court that the response provides all responsive documents to the RFP.

RFP 18 requests

[a]ll DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and recalls concerning the ENGINE DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

In response, Defendant raised the various boilerplate objections raised to all RFP. In supplemental response, Defendant agreed to produce various Service Bulletins. Plaintiff now contends in reply that the produced documents are not responsive to his request. Plaintiff argues that “documents relating to any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and recalls would include board meeting minutes, engineering presentations, drafts of TSBs, and engineering communications.” (Reply 9:12-15.) To the extent that Defendant has agreed only to produce various Service Bulletins, the Court agrees that the production is incomplete. As discussed above, Defendant has not substantiated its list of objections, nor has Defendant shown how it has been produced all responsive documents. Rather, it appears that Defendant has produced only the Service Bulletins which it elected to produce.

RFP 21 requests “[a]ll DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any fixes for ENGINE DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

RFP 64 requests “[a]ll DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any fixes for ELECTRICAL DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

Defendant’s responses were limited to the “SUBJECT VEHICLE,” and “the repair orders for the Subject Vehicle from DCH Gardena Honda and Long Beach Honda, business entities separate from and independent of AHM, and the non-confidential portion of the ACS File. AHM will also produce its CRRS Report, Tech Line Contact Report, and the confidential portion of the ACS File each of which contains information that is confidential, commercially sensitive, and proprietary or trade secret, pursuant to the entry of an appropriate protective order.” (Resp. to RFP 64.) Defendant’s supplemental response agreed to produce the aforementioned Service Bulletins.

Similar to RFP 18, it appears that Defendant has agreed to produce a limited number of documents to RFP 21 and 64, but has not substantiated its objections thereto, nor agreed to produce all responsive documents.

Although not specifically targeted by either party’s papers, the Court notes that Defendant has agreed to produce a series of documents to the other RFP at issue. For example, in response to RFP 17 and 59, Defendant agreed to produce subject to objections the following documents:

the repair orders for the Subject Vehicle from DCH Gardena Honda and Long Beach Honda, business entities separate from and independent of AHM. AHM will also produce its CRRS Report and Tech Line Contact Report.

Where Defendant has responsive documents, and provides no substantiated objections, production of all responsive documents is required. If Defendant has no responsive documents, it may so assert. However, a limited and elective selection of documents is impermissible.

In sum, Defendant has provided no argument to support the various objections enumerated in response to each RFP, nor does it appear from the papers that the select documents Defendant has produced constitute all responsive documents to the subject RFP.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Luis Torres’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to his Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, 7, 16-21, 35-39, 42, 50. 59-64, and 67 is GRANTED.