NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al.

24CV017829: NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Kenneth Jay Namba’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production from Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s (“Defendant”) is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

Plaintiff served the at issue discovery requests on September 15, 2025. (Conn Decl., ¶ 2.) Defendant served its responses on October 31, 2025. (Conn Decl., ¶ 3.) Following meet-and-confer efforts, Plaintiff filed the instant motion on March 20, 2026. (Conn Decl., ¶¶ 5-20.) Defendant served amended responses on April 17, 2026. (Herzog Decl., ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to requests for production, set one, nos. 15, 16, 20, 21, 23 & 25-30. Defendant opposes.

This matter was previously continued from May 6, 2026 to permit the Parties to engage in further meet-and-confer efforts. The Parties filed their joint statement on June 1, 2026, setting forth the Parties’ efforts to further meet and confer and the resulting

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017829: NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

compromises.

The joint statement states that the Parties have come to an agreement with respect to request nos. 15, 16, 20, and 25 and therefore do not require judicial intervention with respect to these requests. Accordingly, the remaining requests for production requiring judicial ruling are request nos. 21, 23, and 26-30.

Requests at Issue

Document Request No. 21: Produce a copy of YOUR written statement of policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase or replacement pursuant to “Lemon Law” claims, including ones brought under the Song-Beverly Act, that were in effect during the period PLAINTIFF possessed the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

Document Request No. 23: Produce a copy of YOUR policies and procedures regarding repurchase of vehicles in response to consumer complaints under the SONG- BEVERLY ACT.

Document Request No. 28: Produce all recordings of telephone calls between PLAINTIFF and YOU.

Defendant responded:

AHM objects to the extent this request asks AHM to respond on behalf of any other entity and responds only on behalf of AHM. Subject to and without waiving this objection, AHM is unable to comply with this request. AHM has made a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with this request and has no documents responsive to this request and, except for telephone call recordings, none have ever existed. As directed to any telephone call recordings, to the extent any existed, they would have been discarded in the ordinary course of business and no longer exist.

Defendant responded to each:

AHM objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and as asking for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, the request fails to describe with reasonable particularity the documents or categories of documents being requested in violation of Code of Civil

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017829: NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

Procedure, Section 2031.030(c)(1). AHM further objects to the extent this request asks AHM to respond on behalf of any other entity and responds only on behalf of AHM. Subject to and without waiving these objections, AHM is unable to comply with this request. Pursuant to a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, AHM has no statement of policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase or replacement pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and no policies or procedures have ever existed. Requests for repurchase or replacement under the Act are evaluated in good faith on a case- by-case basis.

As the party resisting discovery, Defendant has the burden to justify objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Defendant argues that its responses to request nos. 21, 23, and 28 are proper, as the response is code compliant. As Defendant provides no justification for the objections contained in this response, the objections are overruled.

The Court finds Defendant’s response to be code complaint. The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that “While Honda claims that it has no responsive documents, its representation is subject to objections, allowing Honda to hide responsive documents on the cover of such objections.” (Joint State., p. 3:17.) In particular, given Defendant’s explanation in the joint statement that no documents have been withheld on the basis of objections.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED as to request nos. 21, 23, and 28`.

Document Request No. 26: Produce a list of customer complaints in YOUR electronically stored information database that are substantially similar to the defects claimed by PLAINTIFF (i.e., Advanced Driver Assistance System (“ADAS”) defects), in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the SUBJECT VEHICLE. This list shall include the last six of the VIN, date of repair visit, dealership or other reporting location, and text of the other customers’ reported complaint, but shall not include the other customers’ names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, or other personal identifying information.

Defendant responded:

AHM objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and as asking

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017829: NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and it misrepresents and/or does not take into consideration the statutory construct of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. In addition, the request fails to describe with reasonable particularity the documents or categories of documents being requested in violation of Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030(c)(1). Further, the term “Advanced Driver Assistance System (‘ADAS’) defects” is not defined, described, or otherwise explained in this request and, without such, the information referred to or sought cannot be determined, without speculation.

AHM objects to the extent this request asks for information that is protected by the right to privacy. In addition, AHM objects to this request as calling for information that is confidential, commercially sensitive, and/or proprietary. AHM further objects to the extent this request asks AHM to respond on behalf of any other entity.

Document Request No. 27: Product all DOCUMENTS concerning any internal analysis or investigation by YOU CONCERNING the defects claimed by PLAINTIFF (i.e., Advanced Driver Assistance System (“ADAS”) defects), in vehicles for the same year, make, and model of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

Defendant responded:

AHM objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and as asking for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and it misrepresents and/or does not take into consideration the statutory construct of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. In addition, the request fails to describe with reasonable particularity the documents or categories of documents being requested in violation of Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030(c)(1).

AHM objects to this request because it is directed to causal, or related information, of purported defects on the grounds that Plaintiff is not required to prove the cause of a purported defect; rather, Plaintiff is only required to prove the SUBJECT VEHICLE did not conform to its express warranty, and therefore the information sought by this request is designed to harass, vex, and annoy AHM for an in terrorem effect. See Oregel v. Am. Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1102, n.8, Donlen v.

Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 149–52, and CACI No. 3201. Further, the term “Advanced Driver Assistance System (‘ADAS’) defects” is not defined, described, or otherwise explained in this request and, without such, the information referred to or sought cannot be

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017829: NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

determined, without speculation. In addition, AHM objects to this request as calling for information that is confidential, commercially sensitive, and/or proprietary. AHM further objects to the extent this request asks AHM to respond on behalf of any other entity. Subject to and without waiving these objections, as directed to the Advanced Driver Assistance System concerns for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to an authorized Honda repair facility, AHM is unable to comply with this request. AHM has made a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with this request and has no documents responsive to this request and no responsive documents have ever existed.

Defendant argues that request nos. 26 and 27 seek information which is not relevant to the instant action, as they seek information beyond similar vehicles of the same year, make, and model and that the request for technical bulletins is inappropriate given the scope of the case. Defendant further argues that the term ADAS is not defined, described, or explained, and thus is overbroad.

In compromise, Plaintiff agrees to limit the scope of the requests with respect to any investigation to “the underlying investigation and analysis that led to Honda issuing its July 2025 American Honda Position Statement Regarding POST-COLLISION DIAGNOSTIC SCAN AND CALIBRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HONDA AND ACURA VEHICLES.” (Joint State., p. 6:8-10.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to information about the same defects regarding other identical (same year, make, model, sold in California) 2023 Honda CR-V 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 [court's emphasis].) 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 Defendant's knowledge of the defects, and that Defendant lacks the means to fix the defects and nevertheless refuses to repurchase Plaintiff's vehicle.

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 Defendant in complying with its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017829: NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

Defendant’s objections with respect to third party privacy are sustained. To the extent that Defendant withheld any documents on the basis of privacy, 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.

All other objections are overruled.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to request nos. 26 and 27, as set forth above and pursuant to the more limited scope offered by Plaintiff.

Document Request No. 29: Produce YOUR written policies and procedures were in effect during the period PLAINTIFF possessed the SUBJECT VEHICLE, CONCERNING the recording of telephone calls between YOU and consumers.

Document Request No. 30: Produce YOUR written policies and procedures that were in effect during the period PLAINTIFF possessed the SUBJECT VEHICLE, CONCERNING the retention, storage, and deletion of recordings of telephone calls between YOU and consumers.

Defendant responded to request nos. 29 and 30:

AHM objects to this request as asking for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the fails to describe with reasonable particularity the documents or categories of documents being requested in violation of Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030(c)(1). In addition, AHM objects to this request as calling for information that is confidential, commercially sensitive, and/or proprietary. AHM further objects to the extent this request asks AHM to respond on behalf of any other entity.

Plaintiff argues that because Defendant has represented that any call recordings with Plaintiff have been deleted or destroyed, Plaintiff is entitled to any retention procedures to determine if any spoilation has occurred. In opposition, Defendant argues that it has no responsive documents and that the request seeks irrelevant documents.

As set forth above, information is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement.” (Lipton v. Superior Court, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1611-1612.) The Court finds that the requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017829: NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

motion to compel is GRANTED as to request nos. 29 and 30.

To the extent that Defendant has withheld any documents in response to request nos. 29 and 30 on the basis of any privilege or work-product doctrine, it must produce a privilege log.

Disposition

As set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted as to requests for production nos. 26, 27, 29, and 30, as set forth above; and denied as to request nos. 21, 23, 28.

Defendant shall serve verified amended responses by no later than June 29, 2026.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.