COLLINI vs SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, et al.

24CV012469: COLLINI vs SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, et al. 03/13/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties must at the time oral argument is requested notify the clerk and opposing counsel of the specific discovery requests that will be addressed at the hearing. Counsel are also reminded that pursuant to local court rules, only limited oral argument is permitted on law and motion matters. ***

Plaintiff Carol Collini’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel Defendant Subaru of America, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) verified further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFPDs”) is ruled upon as follows.

Overview

This is a Lemon Law action arising from Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2022 Subaru Outback (“the Subject Vehicle”) on March 28, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that during the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle experienced “serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to, structural and electrical system defect” such as problems with the liftgate, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, radio, navigation and voice command systems failing to synchronize, and the tire pressure monitoring system.

Plaintiff filed this action on June 21, 2024, alleging causes of action under the Song-Beverly Act for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violation of Civil Code section 1793.2.

On or about August 16, 2024, Plaintiff propounded the RPFDs on Defendant. Defendant responded on October 1, 2024. The responses include boilerplate objections and some agreements to comply with some RFPDs in full, or in part. Plaintiff contends the objections and responses are not Code compliant or consistent with case law. Moreover, Defendant failed to produce any of the responsive documents requested.

Meet and Confer

On October 8, 2024, Plaintiff sent a 22-page meet-and-confer letter regarding the discovery responses. The letter asked for a response to the letter by October 15, 2024, as well as Defendant’s availability for a meet and confer teleconference, and confirmation of an extension to file a motion to compel further responses. Defendant did not respond to the letter.

On October 16, 2024, Plaintiff sent a 14- page letter asking for a response by October 24, 2024. Plaintiff also indicated her willingness to allow Defendant additional time to supplement its responses provided that Defendant gave her an extension to file a motion to compel further

24CV012469: COLLINI vs SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, et al. 03/13/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54

responses. Again, Defendant did not respond. Plaintiff filed this motion on November 13, 2024.

The parties entered into a stipulated protective order on February 18, 2025.

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith because she purportedly rushed to file the motion “without the courtesy of following up with Defendant.” Defendant further suggests that Plaintiff unreasonably demanded a response to the meet-andconfer letters within seven days. Defendant adds that Plaintiff’s letters failed to address the alleged deficiencies with any specificity.

The Court concludes the meet-and-confer efforts were sufficient. Had Defendant even sent a brief email requesting additional time to respond, and had Plaintiff then filed this motion without further communications, a different outcome may have been warranted. The record before it shows that Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s letters in any way, including granting Plaintiff an extension on the deadline to file a motion to compel, or a date on which Defendant’s counsel was available to meet and confer.

Analysis

Plaintiff categorizes the discovery requests as follows:

Requests 1-14: documents relating to Plaintiff’s own vehicle.

Requests 15-29: documents reflecting Defendant’s warranties and repurchase policies and procedures.

Requests 30-31: documents related to Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year/make/model as the Subject Vehicle.

Defendant argues that the RFPDs are overbroad, and some seek information regarding vehicles other than the Subject Vehicle that are not reasonably calculate to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to information regarding other identical (same year, make, model, sold in California) 2022 Subaru Outback Vehicles.

For discovery, 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 [emphasis in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV012469: COLLINI vs SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, et al. 03/13/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54

original].) 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.) For instance, the requested documents could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence of Defendant’s knowledge of the defects, that Defendant lacked the means to fix the defects but refused 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 Defendant in complying with its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act. (Santana v. FCA US. LLC (2020) 56 Cal. App.5th 334, 347.)

The Court’s limitation of the requests above to cover only similar defects in identical (same year, make, model, sold in California) 2022 Subaru Outback Vehicles effectively addresses Defendant’s claim that the requests are overbroad.

Defendant states in opposition that it agreed to comply with certain requests, and has served an initial document production in response to the RFPDs. This argument overlooks the fact that the responses were accompanied by numerous boilerplate objections which have now been overruled.

The objection to RFPD Nos. 15 and 23-29 on the ground that the requests for policy related documents “since 2020” or “from 2020 to the present” are not reasonably limited in time is sustained. While documents related to the warranty and repurchase policies could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding Defendant’s compliance with the Song-Beverly Act (see Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191, 1199-1200), the Court finds that thedocuments from the filing of the complaint to the present are not reasonably limited in time. Therefore, the Court will limit the timeframe for the RFPDs to be from 2020 to June 21, 2024.

The objection to RFPD Nos. 16-22 on the ground that the requests for policy related documents are not reasonably limited in time is sustained since these requests do not provide any time frame whatsoever. Therefore, the Court will limit the timeframe for the RFPDs to be from 2020 to June 21, 2024.

Defendant’s burdensome and oppression objections are overruled. Defendant fails 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.) There is no declaration from Defendant setting forth any facts to support any claim of burden in this case. The other boilerplate objections, including the vagueness objection, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are also overruled.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV012469: COLLINI vs SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, et al. 03/13/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54

Moreover, although Defendant interposed objections based on privilege, such as attorney-client, work-product, trade secret, and privacy, it fails to indicate whether any documents were withheld on this basis. To the extent that Defendant withheld any documents on the basis of any privilege or work-product, it must provide further responses that provides sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including if necessary, a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240.)

Subject to the above limitations, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED.

Defendant shall serve further written responses in accordance with the above by no later than April 14, 2025, unless the parties agree in writing to a later date.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to produce documents, the motion is mostly premature as Defendant has not yet provided a statement that responsive documents exist and will be produced. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.320(a).)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV012469: COLLINI vs SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, et al. 03/13/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54

non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.