KIMBERLIE ZAMANTHA HATCH VS. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Wednesday, September 17, 2025, Line 9. [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling.]

PLAINTIFF KIMBERLIE HATCH's Motion To Compel Further Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Production Of Documents, Set One. The court orders the parties to meet and confer telephonically or in person about the disputed request for production responses within three weeks of this order and continues the motion for further hearing to November 6, 2025.

Plaintiff may provide a supplemental brief with supporting declarations and/or supplemental separate statement not later than nine court days in advance of the continued hearing date. Defendant may provide a supplemental opposition with supporting declarations or supplemental separate statement not later than five court days in advance of the continued hearing date.

The basis for the order is as follows. Plaintiff's meet and confer was inadequate; sending letters two weeks before the statutory deadline to move to compel cuts the meet and confer process too short. Defendant's response to the meet and confer was inadequate; Plaintiff's time to file this motion was 45 days after service of the responses and Plaintiff had to file to preserve the deadline in the absence of any response from Defendant. The court believes the parties can resolve this discovery dispute and orders them to make a more robust attempt.

The court also notes that Plaintiff's opening papers are boilerplate and do not adequately apprise the court of the issues in dispute. Only the Plaintiff's reply brief and declaration actually give the court information about what disputed documents are actually at issue and what the specific facts are that lead the Plaintiff to believe there is good cause to order further production. The court admonishes Plaintiff in the future to ensure that evidence and arguments it intends to rely on are presented in the opening brief. If important evidence is presented in reply, the opposing party must be given the chance to respond or the court may in its discretion decide not to rely on the evidence at all because the opposing party did not have an opportunity to respond.

The court further notes that Defendant's statements of compliance in its RFP responses-that "production will be allowed in whole" as to all documents "to which no objection is being made"-does not appear to be a proper statement of compliance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.240, subdivision (b), because it does not set out the categories of documents that are being withheld pursuant to objection.

The court further notes that Defendant's arguments about the importance of ensuring that discovery is proportional to the value of this case are well taken. Plaintiff's discovery requests are very broad. Plaintiff shall directly address the argument in its supplemental briefing if any disputes remain for the continued hearing date.

With respect to RFP 30, the court observes that the Lewis Declaration is persuasive that the burdens of responding to the request as drafted would be disproportionate to any benefit in this litigation. The court's view is that Song-Beverly plaintiffs should receive some information about the scope and prevalence of similar customer complaints so that they can value the civil penalties aspect of their case. In the past, the court has ordered discovery of other customers' complaints similar to the alleged defects claimed by plaintiff, limited to vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. If Defendant contends that this more limited order would be unduly burdensome, it should discuss alternatives with Plaintiff and should discuss those alternatives in its supplemental opposition. [End of part 1 of 2.] =(301/CVA) | |