2017-00218831-CU-BC

Tim R. Hunter vs. FCA US, LLC

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Filed By: Hanson, John W.

Plaintiff Tim Hunter’s motion to compel FCA US. LLC’s further responses to requests for production is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff’s motion seeks further responses from Defendant FCA US, LLC (“FCA”) to requests for production, nos. 1-31 and 46-49.

In this Lemon Law action involving a 2015 Chrysler 200 which Plaintiff alleges had engine defects (transmission shifting problems/stalling), Plaintiff seeks to compel FCA to provide full and complete responses to certain requests for production (set one). The requests relate to documents regarding advertising for the specific vehicle, documents identified in response to form interrogatories, documents specifically related to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s vehicle, the customer relations file, documents related to the repair and inspection of Plaintiff’s vehicle, policies and procedures regarding repurchase requests or customer complaints, warranty reimbursement claims regarding Plaintiff’s vehicle, Technical Service Bulletins and Recalls on the specific

vehicle, and documents related to customer complaints regarding the similar alleged defect.

FCA agreed to produce numerous documents in response to many of the requests but also interposed objections based on over breadth, relevance, vagueness and ambiguity. As to certain requests related to customer complaints regarding the similar alleged defect, FCA did not agree to produce any instead simply interposed objections based on over breadth, relevance, vagueness and ambiguity, and also attorney-client privilege and work product objections.

Here, the motion to compel must be granted.

At the outset, while FCA claims that it has since produced documents that it agreed to produce, this does not moot the motion given that even where FCA agreed in its responses to produce documents it still interposed certain objections which Plaintiff has challenged by way of the instant motion. Moreover, FCA only interposed objections with respect to the requests asking for information regarding customer complaints regarding the similar defect alleged in this action.

To the extent that FCA cites to federal law in arguing that the subject discovery was inappropriate, the Court simply points out that the instant discovery motion is governed by California law.

First with respect to the majority of the requests where FCA agreed to produce documents, the objections based on over breadth, relevance, vagueness and ambiguity are overruled. As the party seeking to resist discovery based upon objections, it was FCA’s burden to justify the objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 220-221].) FCA made no attempt to meet that burden. A further response to the requests must be provided removing the objections.

To the extent that FCA objected on the basis of relevance to any of the requests, that objection is overruled. Contrary to FCA’s argument, there is good cause for these requests. Here, as set forth above, the requests related to advertising for the specific vehicle, documents identified in response to form interrogatories, documents specifically related to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s vehicle, the customer relations file, documents related to the repair and inspection of Plaintiff’s vehicle, policies and procedures regarding repurchase requests or customer complaints, warranty reimbursement claims regarding Plaintiff’s vehicle, Technical Service Bulletins and Recalls on the specific vehicle, and documents related to customer complaints regarding the similar alleged defect. 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].) The requests all relate to issues in this Lemon Law matter. Moreover, even to the extent that they relate to other vehicles, 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.) Such information would certainly be relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for civil penalties under Civil Code § 1794(c) given that Plaintiff must show a willful failure by FCA in complying with its obligations

under the Song-Beverly Act. Further, information related to the warranty and repurchase policies could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding Defendant’s compliance with the Song-Beverly Act.

To the extent that the requests (nos. 28-30) touch on vehicles other than Plaintiff’s, the Court limits the scope to cover only documents related to similar defects in identical ( same year, make, model, in California) vehicles. This deals with FCA’s overbreadth objection. While FCA argues that Plaintiff is seeking every document regarding every repair of every Chrysler 200 vehicle, the request is not so broad. Indeed, the requests relating to other vehicles simply ask for documents related to customer complaints regarding the same alleged defect, any survey conducted by FCA regarding the complaints, and documents showing the number of complaints. These are not requests seeking every document regarding every repair made on every Chrysler 200. In any event, the limitation to similar defects in identical (same year, make, model, in California) vehicles places a reasonable cap on the discovery.

FCA’s burdensome and oppression objections are overruled. FCA 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.) FCA’s opposition is devoid of any factual showing whatsoever and any objection based on undue burden is therefore overruled.

In addition, while FCA interposed objections to certain requests (nos. 28-30) based on privilege, e.g., attorney-client, work-product, third party privacy it failed to indicate whether any documents were withheld on this basis. To the extent that FCA withheld any documents on the basis of attorney-client, work product, and/or trade secret privileges, it must provide further responses that provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log. (CCP §2031.240.)

FCA is correct that Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts with respect to this specific discovery were lacking. Indeed, unlike the other two motions on the calendar, the only meet and confer correspondence regarding the requests for production was a single paragraph in an email simply stating that no documents were produced and that there were many boilerplate objections that were vague and without merit. No specific request was discussed. However, the Court retains the discretion to rule on the motion despite the insufficiency of the meet and confer efforts and does so here. The Court would note that FCA did not request sanctions based on Plaintiff’s failure to adequately meet and confer.

To the extent that there were any additional objections not specifically addressed by FCA in its opposition papers and not discussed above they too are also overruled.

No later than March 20, 2018, FCA shall provide further verified responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production nos. 1-31 and 46-49 consistent with the above and Plaintiff’s moving papers.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. The Court finds that sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances, especially in light of the inadequate meet and confer efforts.