Ashley Loza vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

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

34-2022-00329635-CU-BC-GDS: Ashley Loza vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 05/29/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 53

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.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs Ashley and John Loza’s motion to compel Defendant American Honda Motors Co., Inc.’s further responses to requests for production of documents (set one) is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiffs’ unopposed request for judicial notice is granted for the limited purposes permitted for judicial notice. (See, Evid. Code §451, subd. (a); §452, sub. (b)-(d); see also, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not to the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.)

Background

This Lemon Law action arises out of Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2017 Honda Pilot (the “Vehicle”). Plaintiff bring a cause of action for violations of the Song-Beverly Act—breach of express warranty. Plaintiffs allege the Vehicle’s transmission is defective/

Plaintiff served Defendant with a request for production of documents (“RFP”), set one on January 16, 2025. (Lupinek Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s requests on February 26, 2025. (Id. ¶ 6, Exh. B.) At issue on this motion are Defendant’s responses to requests nos. 30-33, 43 and 45 as to which Defendant only interposed objections.

Legal Standard

“[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) “In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad...[and] statutes governing discovery ‘must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes for denial.’ [Citation.]” (Williams v.

Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; see also Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378 [“disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it”].) Nevertheless, while civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless. (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1039 [citing Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223].) It cannot be based on pure

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329635-CU-BC-GDS: Ashley Loza vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 05/29/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 53

speculation. (Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 227.)

The party seeking to resist discovery based upon objections has the burden to justify its objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 220-221].) 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 [emphasis in original].) “Any doubts regarding relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98.)

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. [¶] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate. [¶] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a).)

For requests for production, the burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117; Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310 [requiring a showing of good cause for production of documents].) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)

At the outset, Defendant cites to Civil Code § 871.26 which became effective on January 1, 2025. This section “only applies to a civil action seeking restitution or replacement of a motor vehicle pursuant to Section 871.20” and only to actions filed on or after January 1, 2025. (CCP § 871.26(a), (l).) The section sets forth a list of documents that a defendant shall provide to the plaintiff. (Id. § 871.26(h).) While Defendant concedes that the section does not apply given that the action was filed before January 1, 2025, Defendant argues that the reasoning behind the enactment of the statute, should apply here.

However, the express language of the statute precludes its application here. But even if section 871.26 applied to this action, the statute does not limit what a plaintiff in a Lemon Law action can ask for in discovery, nor does it state that the expounded list of documents to be automatically produce is exclusive.

Discussion

The subject requests for production seek documents related to complaints received regarding the transmission defect in 2017 Honda Pilots and other complaints for which Plaintiffs’ Vehicle experienced, and documents regarding vehicle repurchases. (RFP Nos. 30-33, and 43) Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329635-CU-BC-GDS: Ashley Loza vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 05/29/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 53

also requested documents Defendant produced in a federal lawsuit. (RFP 45)

Good Cause

RFP no. 31 relate to Defendant’s and repurchase policies, procedures, and practices. (See Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191, 1199-1200 [evidence of “corporate policies and practice regarding reacquisition of vehicles” could support the jury’s finding that defendant “had violated the Lemon Law”].) In addition, the requested information may show that Defendant willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act if it failed to comply with its own policies and procedures. These relevant inquiries, along with Plaintiffs’ factual showing via the summary of the repairs cited in support are sufficient to establish good cause for the information sought in the RFPs. (Lupinek Decl. ¶ 11.)

The remaining RFPs, with the exception of RFP No. 45 generally relate to Defendant’s investigation of and knowledge and analysis of defects related to the Vehicle and similar vehicles. (See Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154 [upholding trial court’s denial of Ford’s motion in limine to exclude testimony involving the transmission model Ford installed in plaintiff’s vehicle because “everything about which [the expert] testified that applied to other vehicles applied equally to plaintiff’s vehicle”].)

However, the Court finds that the scope of some of these requests are overbroad and not supported by any factual showing required for good cause. Plaintiffs request, for instance, documents related to the subject defects in all 2017 Honda Pilots equipped with the same 9- Speed Transmission.

Plaintiffs have not established specific facts justifying such a broad discovery demand. (See Glenfed Develop. Corp., supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at 1117 [requiring showing of both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery for good cause].) Nevertheless, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to information related to the Vehicle and other identical (same year, make, model, sold in California) 2017 Honda Pilot vehicles.

RFP No. 45 seeks documents Defendant produced in a federal class action lawsuit. As seen from Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice, the federal class action lawsuit involves 2018-2019 Honda Odysseys across the United States. (RJN Exh. 1.) Defendant argues, among other things, that various federal courts have prohibited such “piggyback” discovery. The Court would agree that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate good cause for this request. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration does not mention the class action lawsuit, much less describe the action such that it could be said Plaintiffs have established both relevance to this action and specific facts justifying the discovery.

Instead, Plaintiffs attached the complaint from the class action lawsuit to their request for judicial notice and argue that the vehicles in that action, which are not 2017 Honda Pilots, have the same transmission as the 2017 Honda Pilots. But as already seen above, the Court has limited the subject discovery requests to information related to the Vehicle and other identical 2017 Honda Pilot vehicles sold in California. Plaintiffs have necessarily

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329635-CU-BC-GDS: Ashley Loza vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 05/29/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 53

failed to establish good cause for a significantly broader scope related to non-2017 Honda Pilot vehicles. Moreover, there could be documents that Defendant produced in the federal class action that have nothing to do with the matters in this action and yet Plaintiffs seek production of all documents produced.

The Court finds Plaintiffs have established good cause for requests nos. 30-33 and 43 as limited above, but not request no.

45.

Objections

Defendant offers a litany of objections. They include the following: that terms are vague and ambiguous, that the requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and not relevant to the subject matter of this action or reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, that they seek confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information, and that the requests ask Defendant to respond on behalf of another entity.

Defendant has not justified many of its objections. Its general assertions about relevance and the scope of discovery do nothing to substantiate the basis for its objections. Its repeated citations to Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court is unavailing. The discovery at issue in Calcor required Calcor, a non-party, to effectively “produce all materials in its possession relating to gun mounts, going back nearly 10 years.” (53 Cal.App.4th at 219.) It also requested documents which had nothing to do with the contract in dispute. (Id. at 220 [Calcor had three contracts, only one of which related to the controversy between the parties in litigation].)

The Fourth District has emphasized that its holding in Calcor was premised on the fact that Calcor was a nonparty to the action. (See Lopez v. Watchtowner Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 595-596.) Defendant is a party to this action and the documents relate to its policies and practices, as well as its knowledge of defects of the components installed in Plaintiff’s Vehicle. Having found that Plaintiff has shown good cause to justify the documents demanded, Defendant’s relevance objections are overruled. (See Glenfed Develop.

Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 [finding of good cause requires both relevance and specific facts justifying discovery].)

Additionally, the Court’s limitation of the RFPs above to cover only similar defects in identical (same year, make, model, in California) 2017 Honda Pilot vehicles effectively addresses Defendant’s claim that the requests here are overbroad and precludes it from determining what Plaintiffs are asking for. Defendant must simply make a good faith effort to respond to the discovery based upon a reasonable interpretation of the request. Plaintiffs adequately narrowed the defects by tying them to the Vehicle’s repair history. The overbroad objections are overruled. The fact that the documents may involve defects that Plaintiffs’ Vehicle did not specifically experience does not render the requests impermissibly overbroad. The Court rejects and overrules any objection that the RFPs failed to specifically describe documents or reasonably

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329635-CU-BC-GDS: Ashley Loza vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 05/29/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 53

particularize each category of item.

A vague and ambiguous objection is only proper where the request is so ambiguous that the responding party cannot provide an intelligent response. (Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 430.) The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ requests are not so ambiguous that Defendant cannot provide an intelligent response. This objection is overruled.

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.) It is not entirely clear that Defendant interposed an undue burden objection. However, to the extent that Defendant objected on the basis of undue burden, that objection is overruled as Defendant did not substantiate any undue burden objection in its opposition.

Defendant further objects that the information sought would divulge confidential information and trade secrets. The Court notes that on April 15, 2025, the Court entered an order approving the parties' stipulated protective order for confidential information. Thus, Defendant may designate documents to be produced subject to a protective order.

In addition, while Defendant interposed objections based on privilege, e.g., trade secret, privacy, it failed to indicate whether any documents were actually withheld on this basis. The Court has already addressed the appropriateness of a stipulated protective order to be entered in this action if not already. To the extent that Defendant still withholds any documents on the basis of privilege, 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.) Any issues that counsel fail to resolve through meet-and-confer efforts pertaining to designation of material subject to a protective order or withheld on the basis of privilege may be subject to a subsequent motion.

The Court also overruled any objection premised on Defendant’s contention that the request requires it to respond on behalf of another party. While the term “YOU” is defined broadly, as commonly done in discovery requests, Defendant is not required to respond on behalf of a third party. Defendant is only required to respond on its own behalf.

To the extent that Defendant argues in opposition that it provided code-complaint responses, this argument fails. The subject requests at issue on this motion only contained objections. However, Defendant’s objections have been overruled and further responses in accordance with that ruling must be provided.

Consistent with the Court’s ruling, including limitations, indicated above, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted as to RFPs nos. 30-33 and 43. It is denied as to no.

45.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329635-CU-BC-GDS: Ashley Loza vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 05/29/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 53

Motion Seeking Production of Documents

To the extent Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendant to produce documents through this same motion, the Court finds that the motion is premature as Defendant has not yet provided a complete statement that responsive documents exist and will be produced. Given that the Court has now ruled upon Defendant’s objections, Defendant must first provide supplemental verified responses in light of the Court’s rulings. A motion to compel production is only proper where a party has agreed to produce documents but has failed to do so in compliance with its statement. (CCP § 2031.320, subd. (a).) Nonetheless, the Court expects that the parties will cooperate to coordinate production of responsive documents upon Defendant’s service of its supplemental responses in light of this Court’s order.

Sanctions

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied as Defendant’s opposition was substantially justified. Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied as the motion was substantially justified.

Disposition

In sum, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted to the extent described above. In light of the Court’s rulings here, Defendant shall serve further verified responses, as limited to the Vehicle and other identical (same year, make, model, sold in California) 2017 Honda Pilot vehicles, to Plaintiffs’ request for production of documents, nos. 30-33 and 43 set one by no later than July 29, 2025. The motion is denied as to request no.

45.

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