Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Case No.: VCU328025 Date: June 9, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman Motion: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion as to Nos. 1, 3-4, 7, 10, 13, and 30; further responses are due no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this hearing; to deny the motion as to Nos. 23-29.
Facts On or about October 29, 2023, 2023, Plaintiff leased a 2024 Honda Accord, bearing VIN: 1HGCY1F28RA011535 ("Subject Vehicle").
On or about November 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed this matter for breach of written warranty, alleging various defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to, electrical, steering, and suspension system defects.
On or about January 28, 2026, Plaintiff propounded requests for production of documents, set one.
On or about April 2, 2026, Defendant provided responses containing objections and indicating that either documents responsive thereto would be produced or that, after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no such documents exist.
Plaintiff, thereafter, attempted to meet and confer in writing and telephonically as to the production of documents indicated in the responses. However, no documents have been produced.
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses as to Nos. 1, 3-4, 7, 10, 13, and 23-30. The Court notes an executed protective order filed May 8, 2026.
In opposition, Defendant argues that substantive responses were provided, that this motion is templated or recycled from other motions and addresses objections not present and that the discovery otherwise sought is beyond the claims Plaintiff makes in this matter.
Authority and Analysis Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210 requires, in response to a request for production, the following: "(a) The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following: (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities. (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item. (3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling."
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 provides "A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production."
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 provides "A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item."
Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a) permits a party to demand a further response where: " (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general."
Under subsection (b), the motion must "set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand."
In Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the court defined "good cause" as a showing that there "a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact."
If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)
Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7 and 10 These requests relate to documents involving the Subject Vehicle in the possession or control of Defendant. After objecting on grounds of confidentiality, commercial sensitivity and/or that the requests seek proprietary information, Defendant indicates it will produce documents responsive to the requests.
Plaintiff's motion states no documents have been produced. However, Defendant's declaration states "On April 29, 2026, AHM served its document production, including all records specifically pertaining to the Subject Vehicle. On May 8, 2026, AHM served its confidential document production after Plaintiff signed a standard stipulation and protective order." (Declaration of Edel P.6.)
To the extent that some production has not occurred, the Court will order production, as promised in the responses, to take place no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this hearing.
No. 13 This request seeks communications or contacts between Plaintiff and Defendants. Again, after objecting on grounds of confidentiality, commercial sensitivity and/or that the requests seek proprietary information, Defendant indicates it will produce documents responsive to the requests.
Again, it is unclear whether Defendant has produced all documents responsive to this category, based on the statements in the motion and the declaration of Defendant's counsel.
To the extent that some production has not occurred, the Court will order production, as promised in the responses, to take place no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this hearing.
Nos. 23-29 The requests seek information as to warranty policy and procedure manuals as to warranty repairs, categorization thereof, repeat visits, test drives, repair reimbursement and handling customer concerns on issues that cannot be replicated.
The Court notes that Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal. App. 4th 1094, 1103-1105 [manufacturer's policies and procedures requiring a part to be replaced or adjusted before it was deemed a "repair attempt" under the lemon law and refusing to find a "repair attempt" where a mechanic was unable to diagnose the problem were sufficient to establish a finding of willfulness under Song Beverly Act] and Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 1191, 1199 [holding Ford's buyback program was "structured precisely to short-circuit lemon law claims," entitling the plaintiff to punitive damages] indicate that such policies are relevant to Song Beverly cases.
The Court reiterates the above regarding the repurchase policies and adds that a violation is willful if the manufacturer knew of its obligations, but intentionally failed to fulfill them. (Schreidel v. American Honda Motor Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249-1250.)
Therefore, a manufacturer's policies, or lack thereof as to replacement or repurchase may determine a willful violation. (See Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 136 [jury should consider factors as to willfulness "whether the manufacturer had a written policy on the requirement to repair or replace."]; Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 186 ["Whether the lack of a written policy demonstrates [defendant's] lack of good faith is a question to be answered by a properly instructed jury . . . ."].)
However, the Court does not find these requests sufficiently tailored to the defects alleged in this case and the Court does not find the cases above justify obtaining any and every policy as to any and every vehicle suffering from any and every defect.
Each request, however, does seeks such information, in violation of section 2031.030(c)(1). Therefore, the Court will not order a further responses to Nos. 23-29.
The Court does note, however, that Defendant has agreed to produce a documents responsive to Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 26.
No. 30 Here, Plaintiff seeks documents reflecting similar customer complaints to those at issue in this matter.
Though not a case involving a discovery issue, in Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154, the appellate court held the trial court had not erred in denying defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of other customers' complaints about the same transmission model Defendant installed in plaintiff's truck and other vehicles.
The Donlon court ruled that "other vehicle testimony was not unduly prejudicial. It did not concern simply other vehicles. It was limited to the [defective component] in Plaintiff's truck and other vehicles [Plaintiff's expert] described what Ford itself had done to notify dealers and technicians about problems with this [defective component] model. Thus, everything about which he testified that applied equally to Plaintiff's vehicle. Such evidence certainly was probative and not unduly prejudicial." (Id. at 154; See also Doppes v. Bentley (2009) 174 Cal.App.4 th 967 [documents related to the frequency of repurchases and similar complaints about other vehicles of the same year, make, and model are relevant in actions that involved violations of the Song-Beverly Act.].)
Similarly, in Jensen v. BMW of North American, LLC (S.D. Cal. 2019) 328 F.R.D. 557, 562-563, the court found that "information regarding whether the same defects reported to BMW in other cars of the same make, model, and year as Plaintiff's subject vehicle could conceivably be relevant to whether BMW acted reasonably in denying Plaintiff's warranty claims. A fact finder may find BMW's knowledge or lack of knowledge about the same defects to be a consideration in deciding whether BMW acted in good faith as to Plaintiff's specific case."
Therefore, the Court will order a further response to No.
30.
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary.
The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.
Re: Gilbert, Sydney vs. Murray, Jacob Wayne